By an 'independent investigation' they mean exactly what our Democratic friends mean when they say that the Department of Justice is meant to be 'independent' of the President -- that is, that it should be controlled wholly by an administrative state that is not under the control of any democratically elected official. This just what Weber warned about (see the sidebar).
The democratically elected officials, meanwhile, also have to ask the EU bureaucracy for permission to fund NATO in line with their treaty obligations (which, allegedly, make up part of the supreme law as they were democratically enacted and ratified). We are meant to believe that it is vitally important that no radical right-wingers be allowed to assume those democratic offices, which don't control the secret police or the budget but are controlled both above and below by 'administrative states.'
So "this is democracy," German style. An independent secret police deciding to spy upon a political party to which the government is hostile, and then the courts taking steps to ban it from participation. But if they did somehow get to participate and win, they still wouldn't be in charge of anything. They'd be controlled by the administrators above them and below them.
In fairness to the Germans, we weren't that far off of that in 2016, when the government was using spy powers targeting Carter Page to collect and read all of his communications with anyone, and then was allowed to further read all of the communications of anyone they collected that way -- i.e., the Trump campaign. And then they opened investigations like Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, took down and tried to imprison a sitting National Security Advisor on made-up perjury charges based documents they edited long after the fact and disappeared, and then....
And by the way, what did we ever learn about that assassin in Butler last summer? How'd that happen? Well, perhaps that's just paranoia -- unlike the rest of it, which is clearly established fact.
7 comments:
Yeah, the term "democracy" sure has meant something besides the obvious lately. Or, maybe for the last hundred years or so.
Yeah, the term "democracy" sure has meant something besides the obvious lately....
It's more than just verbal laziness, too. The Left, and the Germans (am I repeating myself?) are using the Newspeak Dictionary when they use terms like "democracy."
On the other hand, I prefer a standard American Dictionary for definitions. It's why I'm at pains, as are most of us in the Hall, to discriminate among "democracy," "popular democracy," and "republican democracy."
Eric Hines
Eric, I think the tell from the beginning was the constant references to 'Our Democracy'.
Yes, it is all Newspeak on their side. What exactly are the differences in your terms?
What exactly are the differences in your terms?
For me, the a popular democracy is illustrated by the Athenian version (eliding the extremely limited franchise), where a simple majority of the voting-eligible population can, by design, impose their will on the minority, even at the expense of the latter's supposedly equal rights, and on the city as a whole.
A republican democracy is illustrated by what ours nominally is: elected representatives from defined regions (States and State districts in our case) form the core of a central government, along with an elected President and an appointed-for-life judiciary, with the political--elected--arms of that central government mostly outward looking and the judiciary mostly domestic oriented, and the States (largely subsuming the internal districts into the whole for this purpose) nearly equal to the central government on domestic matters (in our case, only nearly since the central government gets to control interstate commerce).
It's much harder in this sort of structure for a simple majority to willy-nilly impose its will on the minority. Unfortunately, that original design has been getting eroded with judicial decisions like Wickard, which allowed the central government to invade any State's internal affairs; Berman, Midkiff, and Kelo which have badly eroded private property rights, the Left's constant assaults on our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, assaults actually taken seriously by too many judges.
Democracy is simply the Left's and Party's obfuscatory term used to disguise their monarchist efforts.
Eric Hines
Thanks. Makes sense. On the Left/Party, I tend to think they're in favor of oligarchy rather than monarchy, but in any case, yes, it's an obfuscatory term for what they really want, which is for the people to be powerless.
...what they really want, which is for the people to be powerless.
It's less that than it is that they have all the power.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment