Converting Democracy into Tyranny

 

First, Democrats convince blacks that they can’t possibly achieve anything on their own.  They can’t be expected to qualify for good schools without affirmative action.  They couldn’t get a decent job without the assistance of benevolent white people.  They can’t even be expected to raise their own children.  And guess what?  When you tell someone that they can’t do something and that we’ll do that for you, that is a perfect way to ensure that that person will stop trying.  Why waste effort, when things are being taken care of for me?  After all, I couldn’t do it anyway.  I describe myself as a bleeding heart conservative because I loathe the destructive impact leftism has on the human soul.

Then Democrats did the same thing with whites.  They told them they can’t accomplish anything on their own, from Obama’s “Julia” to Sen. Warren’s “You didn’t build that.”  Now that any success enjoyed by a white person is due to white privilege and so on, even whites have been taught that they can’t achieve anything on their own, and that government should provide for them.  Any white person that attempts to succeed on his or her own is described as racist and selfish.  So why try?

Our founding fathers saw the purpose of the democratic process as a means of limiting the power of government.  But our modern Democrat party takes a different view.  Once you’ve convinced blacks, and whites, and everyone else that they can’t achieve on their own, you then establish government as a benevolent source of, well, everything.  For everyone.  Which makes government very powerful.  Which makes those who control government very, very powerful.  So our democratic process no longer limits the power of government as our founders intended – it increases the power of government.  And the resulting increase in governmental power appears to follow an exponential curve.

Or, as Hemingway might say, the previously democratic government gains power gradually, and then suddenly.

As government begins to rapidly gain such enormous power, elections become too important to be left to chance, so the temptation to seek to control the outcomes of elections becomes irresistible.  There’s just too much at stake.

At this point, democracy has been converted into tyranny.

And this is an especially powerful form of tyranny.  The people are not likely to rise up to depose the leader, because they chose him.  And if they do, they can’t just kill the king.  The entire system has been built from the ground up to create centralized control systems, with enormous support from the news media, the educational establishment, federal & state bureaucracies, social media, cancel culture, peer pressure, and so on.

Encouraging weakness in individual citizens leads to enormous power in centralized government.  Once a majority of citizens believe that they need a strong centralized government to help them, then that government becomes very powerful.

How can such a system be overturned?  Once the entrenched power system becomes strong enough to control elections – even only partially – then they have absolute power.  As described by Lord Acton, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Because everyone is on the take, not just the king.  And then, that’s it.  How can such a system be overturned?

It’s my understanding that when Thomas Jefferson first learned of the French Revolution, his first response was something like, “Good for them.”  And once he learned how things were going, his next response was, “Oh my God…”

Our founding fathers feared the tyranny of the majority.   And this was a major reason that they feared the use of government to redistribute wealth and power.  When a law was proposed for the federal government to create a fund for widows of war veterans, James Madison was sympathetic to their cause, but responded with his famous line:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

There were many reasons for their caution in such matters.  But I think they instinctively recognized that once our government got in the business of taking money away from some people and giving it to others, even with only the best of intentions, then their dream of limited government would have no chance of succeeding.

And that’s just with taxing and spending – they hadn’t even considered the limitless power that results from printing new money to buy votes.  The government then takes on the role not just of Santa Claus, but also of God.

Would you vote against Santa Claus?  What about God?

At that point, government has absolutely enormous power.  And the leaders of the government also have absolutely enormous power.

A democratic government such as this has enormous power even with honest elections – who could vote against them?  Only racist deplorables.  Are you a racist deplorable?  No?  Well, then, vote for us.  With the help of the news media, our educational system social media, etc, the opposition will have great difficulty winning elections.

But at some point, the government and its leaders become so powerful that there’s just too much at stake.  Which makes elections of those leaders too important to be left to chance.

Which converts democracy into tyranny.

It all seems so nice.  “Oh, you couldn’t possibly do that on your own.  Let your government help you.  Vote for me.”  How nice.

And all that niceness converts democracy into a form of tyranny that is nearly impossible to overturn.

You know the saying:  You can vote your way into socialism.  But you’ll have to shoot your way out.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 50 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    philo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    I wonder if the Founders contemplated a nation of three hundred million people. I wonder what they would have said, if asked whether their Constitution would “scale up” to a continent-wide nation of fifty states and 300M people, a plurality of whom came from other than Europe.

    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    If nothing else, trying to herd 10,000 cats would drive the lobbyists nuts.

    And bribe money would have to be spread pretty thin.

    • #31
  2. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    I wonder if the Founders contemplated a nation of three hundred million people. I wonder what they would have said, if asked whether their Constitution would “scale up” to a continent-wide nation of fifty states and 300M people, a plurality of whom came from other than Europe.

    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    If nothing else, trying to herd 10,000 cats would drive the lobbyists nuts.

    And bribe money would have to be spread pretty thin.

    Combine this new House with my plan for a virtual House assembly…each member calls in from an office in his/her HOME DISTRICT…and lobbying becomes much harder for a while. (Or course, they will eventually corrupt that system too, but it buys us some time.)

    • #32
  3. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    philo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    I wonder if the Founders contemplated a nation of three hundred million people. I wonder what they would have said, if asked whether their Constitution would “scale up” to a continent-wide nation of fifty states and 300M people, a plurality of whom came from other than Europe.

    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    If nothing else, trying to herd 10,000 cats would drive the lobbyists nuts.

    And that would be a big win. Buying legislative action would become an order of magnitude more expensive. The market for campaign advertising would be totally hosed. Are you really going to plunk down money for TV ads just to reach the 30,000 people that live in a quadrant of a town with 120,000 people in it?

    • #33
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    I’ve read fairly convincing arguments that we’d be better off if that was the case.

    Well maybe in the general sense that nothing would get done, maybe so. But doesn’t that also mean that – for one example – the Nazis would now control the world?

    Sorry. I don’t follow the reasoning.

    I’m not willing to assume that 10,000 members of the House could have been convinced to vote to declare war on Germany.

    I’m not persuaded that the Congress we had at the time could have been too, except Adolph declared war on them first.

    As far as I know, an official declaration of war by an enemy, does not remove the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war in return.

    • #34
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    I’ve read fairly convincing arguments that we’d be better off if that was the case.

    Well maybe in the general sense that nothing would get done, maybe so. But doesn’t that also mean that – for one example – the Nazis would now control the world?

    Sorry. I don’t follow the reasoning.

    I’m not willing to assume that 10,000 members of the House could have been convinced to vote to declare war on Germany.

    Only 5,001 would have been needed to be convinced.

    That’s still a multiple of 22 over what’s needed now.

    • #35
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    I wonder if the Founders contemplated a nation of three hundred million people. I wonder what they would have said, if asked whether their Constitution would “scale up” to a continent-wide nation of fifty states and 300M people, a plurality of whom came from other than Europe.

    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    If nothing else, trying to herd 10,000 cats would drive the lobbyists nuts.

    And that would be a big win. Buying legislative action would become an order of magnitude more expensive. The market for campaign advertising would be totally hosed. Are you really going to plunk down money for TV ads just to reach the 30,000 people that live in a quadrant of a town with 120,000 people in it?

    An order of magnitude, +-3dB.  :-)

    • #36
  7. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    I’ve read fairly convincing arguments that we’d be better off if that was the case.

    Well maybe in the general sense that nothing would get done, maybe so. But doesn’t that also mean that – for one example – the Nazis would now control the world?

    Sorry. I don’t follow the reasoning.

    I’m not willing to assume that 10,000 members of the House could have been convinced to vote to declare war on Germany.

    I’m not persuaded that the Congress we had at the time could have been too, except Adolph declared war on them first.

    As far as I know, an official declaration of war by an enemy, does not remove the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war in return.

    So you’d do what instead? Ignore the U-boats? Surrender?

    • #37
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    I’ve read fairly convincing arguments that we’d be better off if that was the case.

    Well maybe in the general sense that nothing would get done, maybe so. But doesn’t that also mean that – for one example – the Nazis would now control the world?

    Sorry. I don’t follow the reasoning.

    I’m not willing to assume that 10,000 members of the House could have been convinced to vote to declare war on Germany.

    I’m not persuaded that the Congress we had at the time could have been too, except Adolph declared war on them first.

    As far as I know, an official declaration of war by an enemy, does not remove the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war in return.

    So you’d do what instead? Ignore the U-boats? Surrender?

    Not help England in order to be “neutral?”  Who knows?

    But we’re not talking about what *I* would do.

    • #38
  9. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    I’ve read fairly convincing arguments that we’d be better off if that was the case.

    Well maybe in the general sense that nothing would get done, maybe so. But doesn’t that also mean that – for one example – the Nazis would now control the world?

    Sorry. I don’t follow the reasoning.

    I’m not willing to assume that 10,000 members of the House could have been convinced to vote to declare war on Germany.

    I’m not persuaded that the Congress we had at the time could have been too, except Adolph declared war on them first.

    As far as I know, an official declaration of war by an enemy, does not remove the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war in return.

    So you’d do what instead? Ignore the U-boats? Surrender?

    Not help England in order to be “neutral?” Who knows?

    But we’re not talking about what *I* would do.

    Germany. Declared. War. It only takes one.

    • #39
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    I’ve read fairly convincing arguments that we’d be better off if that was the case.

    Well maybe in the general sense that nothing would get done, maybe so. But doesn’t that also mean that – for one example – the Nazis would now control the world?

    Sorry. I don’t follow the reasoning.

    I’m not willing to assume that 10,000 members of the House could have been convinced to vote to declare war on Germany.

    I’m not persuaded that the Congress we had at the time could have been too, except Adolph declared war on them first.

    As far as I know, an official declaration of war by an enemy, does not remove the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war in return.

    So you’d do what instead? Ignore the U-boats? Surrender?

    Not help England in order to be “neutral?” Who knows?

    But we’re not talking about what *I* would do.

    Germany. Declared. War. It only takes one.

    It depends on how seriously Congress takes it.  I suppose if you couldn’t get them to vote to declare war, they might also not be able to vote for impeachment or something for the President doing things anyway.  But would they get so ticked at the President spending money that they didn’t approve of, that they stop passing military budgets?  Perhaps.

    • #40
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    I’ve read fairly convincing arguments that we’d be better off if that was the case.

    Well maybe in the general sense that nothing would get done, maybe so. But doesn’t that also mean that – for one example – the Nazis would now control the world?

    Sorry. I don’t follow the reasoning.

    I’m not willing to assume that 10,000 members of the House could have been convinced to vote to declare war on Germany.

    I’m not persuaded that the Congress we had at the time could have been too, except Adolph declared war on them first.

    As far as I know, an official declaration of war by an enemy, does not remove the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war in return.

    So you’d do what instead? Ignore the U-boats? Surrender?

    Not help England in order to be “neutral?” Who knows?

    But we’re not talking about what *I* would do.

    Germany. Declared. War. It only takes one.

    It depends on how seriously Congress takes it. I suppose if you couldn’t get them to vote to declare war, they might also not be able to vote for impeachment or something for the President doing things anyway. But would they get so ticked at the President spending money that they didn’t approve of, that they stop passing military budgets? Perhaps.

    Within a week, German U-boats were sinking US ships in US waters. World War II. It was in the papers and everything.

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    I’ve read fairly convincing arguments that we’d be better off if that was the case.

    Well maybe in the general sense that nothing would get done, maybe so. But doesn’t that also mean that – for one example – the Nazis would now control the world?

    Sorry. I don’t follow the reasoning.

    I’m not willing to assume that 10,000 members of the House could have been convinced to vote to declare war on Germany.

    I’m not persuaded that the Congress we had at the time could have been too, except Adolph declared war on them first.

    As far as I know, an official declaration of war by an enemy, does not remove the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war in return.

    So you’d do what instead? Ignore the U-boats? Surrender?

    Not help England in order to be “neutral?” Who knows?

    But we’re not talking about what *I* would do.

    Germany. Declared. War. It only takes one.

    It depends on how seriously Congress takes it. I suppose if you couldn’t get them to vote to declare war, they might also not be able to vote for impeachment or something for the President doing things anyway. But would they get so ticked at the President spending money that they didn’t approve of, that they stop passing military budgets? Perhaps.

    Within a week, German U-boats were sinking US ships in US waters. World War II. It was in the papers and everything.

    Yes, we know what DID happen.

    • #42
  13. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    There may be only one way out and it will vanish quickly.  Leave the union and form one based on the original constitution.  Moving strongly in that direction may even cause some Democrats to adjust away from their totalitarian temptation. 

    • #43
  14. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    I Walton (View Comment):

    There may be only one way out and it will vanish quickly. Leave the union and form one based on the original constitution. Moving strongly in that direction may even cause some Democrats to adjust away from their totalitarian temptation.

    I doubt it.

    • #44
  15. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    I wonder if the Founders contemplated a nation of three hundred million people. I wonder what they would have said, if asked whether their Constitution would “scale up” to a continent-wide nation of fifty states and 300M people, a plurality of whom came from other than Europe.

    I think that they would have trepidation, but still feel that the inherent natural law they based their foundations upon would still apply. They might feel, as Franklin did, that it would be a constant struggle to maintain a republic, but things that are good are rarely easy. In the end, its the laziness that humans tend to that has corrupted our republic until it doesn’t really resemble a republic anymore. 

    • #45
  16. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    philo (View Comment):

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment): …I am a self-described 2A Absolutist

    In the literal sense, a wonderful term of which I would count myself among the group. I suspect most who would consider themselves even ultra-staunch 2A supporters would fall well short of my (and your?) meaning.

    I’ve started drafting a post discussing this term, “2A Absolutist,” as I have never used it in print or even casual conversation before. As far as I know, it’s my own invention. I’ll post the essay later today (5/29/21) once I knock it together.

    • #46
  17. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment): …I am a self-described 2A Absolutist

    In the literal sense, a wonderful term of which I would count myself among the group. I suspect most who would consider themselves even ultra-staunch 2A supporters would fall well short of my (and your?) meaning.

    I’ve started drafting a post discussing this term, “2A Absolutist,” as I have never used it in print or even casual conversation before. As far as I know, it’s my own invention. I’ll post the essay later today (5/29/21) once I knock it together.

    Great. I’ll prepare to prove I am more Absolutist than you! (Just kidding.)

    • #47
  18. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    philo (View Comment):

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment): …I am a self-described 2A Absolutist

    In the literal sense, a wonderful term of which I would count myself among the group. I suspect most who would consider themselves even ultra-staunch 2A supporters would fall well short of my (and your?) meaning.

    I’ve started drafting a post discussing this term, “2A Absolutist,” as I have never used it in print or even casual conversation before. As far as I know, it’s my own invention. I’ll post the essay later today (5/29/21) once I knock it together.

    Great. I’ll prepare to prove I am more Absolutist than you! (Just kidding.)

    My wife and I are going to start practicing in the back yard.

    • #48
  19. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    I wonder if the Founders contemplated a nation of three hundred million people. I wonder what they would have said, if asked whether their Constitution would “scale up” to a continent-wide nation of fifty states and 300M people, a plurality of whom came from other than Europe.

    That reality made it even more essential that we not centralize.    The central government managed mostly international trade rules and Defense.  Centralization makes it ungovernable unless smaller groups take charge and govern for narrower interests.  Their own, of course.   

    • #49
  20. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Percival (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    I wonder if the Founders contemplated a nation of three hundred million people. I wonder what they would have said, if asked whether their Constitution would “scale up” to a continent-wide nation of fifty states and 300M people, a plurality of whom came from other than Europe.

    Well, if the scale of representation had remained the same, which I believe was (no more than) one for every 30,000 population, the House would now consist of 10,000 representatives.

    If nothing else, trying to herd 10,000 cats would drive the lobbyists nuts.

    And that would be a big win. Buying legislative action would become an order of magnitude more expensive. The market for campaign advertising would be totally hosed. Are you really going to plunk down money for TV ads just to reach the 30,000 people that live in a quadrant of a town with 120,000 people in it?

    Biden wants to “pack” the Court. If he does, let’s pack the House. AND make President Donald J. Trump the Speaker of the House!

    • #50
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.