It was William F. Buckley who famously quipped, “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty.” It's hard to disagree with him. But I agree hardly because of the percipience of the common man. I agree with Buckley because Political Correctness, the real religion of the liberal elites, has educated the best and brightest among us into imbecility, in part because of snobbishness. The ruling class, the liberal elites, want to separate themselves from the rest of us; it's part of human nature. Huxley described this phenomenon in <i>Brave New World</i> when he wrote that taxis were good enough for the ruling elites when everybody else had to take the bus or walk.
The problem for the ruling class is that if the rest of us want things like mega-mansions or fancy German cars, we can scrimp and save enough to purchase such things, the group the ruling class scornfully dismisses as "wannabes". As the postmodernists have made much of, not even art allows the ruling classes to stand apart anymore, as Warhol made clear with his famous soup can art. The technology needed to reproduce art endlessly is now commonplace.
We can all have copies of some of the world's greatest art works hanging our walls, what the postmodernists call simulacra. What sets the ruling class apart is Political Correctness. The ruling class can claim to love things like mandatory desegregation, open borders, and diversity in general because they have the wealth and power to insulate themselves from its ravages--something we less exalted beings increasingly lack.
What our liberal ruling class has lost sight of is that the only thing that legitimizes the existence of a ruling class is protecting and defending the interests of the ruled. The purpose of rulers is to prevent unforeseeable catastrophes. Because of their insufferable snobbishness, we are ruled by those those hellbent to cause catastrophes. This is why the most pedestrian cab drivers, plumbers, and teachers can see clearly the catastrophes looming--things Ivy League prodigies have blinded themselves to.
Does this mean we need democracy, or rule by the demos? Nope. If such were possible, democracy would be the standard instead of a utopian pipe dream. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Socrates was put to death by his Athenian democracy for exercising his free speech rights a little too vigorously. As Churchill put the matter, the best argument against democracy is to spend five minutes talking with the average voter. The fact is that the common people don't even want democracy. While most people are good at something, they think poorly when they bother to think at all, and on a visceral level they know it. This is why a ruling class is anthropologically one of the few universals. Average people instinctively desire a ruling class.
One of the primary differences between democracy and republicanism is that the latter assumes that we were not all created equal, Jefferson's notorious claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Republicanism assumes that the people own both government and country; the ruling class only holds the government in trust for the people. The problem for republican government is trying to find rulers willing to place the public interest ahead of their own private interests. The problem with democracy is that it refuses to recognize the inevitability of rule by elites; it insists upon assuming the falsehood that we were all created equal.
Since the masses are easily gulled, the problem isn't too little democracy, but too much. Liberal elites want a universal franchise because politicians see voting constituencies when running for office, and people easily manipulated once they attain power. I offer the following solutions to the problems white groups face almost everywhere for your consideration:
1. The hermetic separation of corporation and state. One of liberalism's defining features is where government is owned by corporations, and they run what is supposed to be our government in nobody's interests but their own. What is needed is to keep corporate money out of the political process completely. This is perfectly constitutional. Corporations are pieces of personal property, and thus are no more entitled to rights than my toaster oven. Supreme Court justices who disagree need to be impeached post haste.
2. Good government should be accorded dignity over any universal franchise. Therefore, a test should be required before a citizen is allowed to vote. The citizen must show they have a rudimentary understanding of what is going on before being allowed to vote. People who know what is going on are less easily manipulated by politicians who are experts at manipulating others. While voting should not be universal, the right to take this test should be. We want average people who know what is going on voting. Both the universal franchise that is now <i>de rigueur</i>, as well as the early Lockean liberal notion that only the rich should be able to vote guarantee the implicit liberal ideal of government of the people, by the rich, for the rich.
3. A NONE OF THE ABOVE ballot option for all races. If this option receives the majority of the votes, then a new election must be held for that office with a new slate of candidates. Until these things happen, the real pipe dream is expecting our current situation to change.
Comments
Post a Comment