The Little Red Blog

Saturday Lecture: On Aristocratic Democracy

{I don’t know if Marcia Christoff Reina, author of the pro-aristocracy piece below, was or is familiar with the classic joke known as “The Aristocrats” (The Aristocrats - Wikipedia). Should she be exposed to it, she would be appalled, I am certain, as would any decent person. In fact, forget that I even mentioned it, and please don’t click on that link.}

Marcia Christoff Reina, from “Why Democracy Needs Aristocracy” (2014; republished in 2022):

What was once considered the ideal creation of Western Civilization was the noble individual, celebrated from Roman philosophers to 18th century Englishmen like Gibbon to 19th century Americans like Emerson. From the heights of the Promethean view of man’s potential, to the degenerate view of the human as helplessly weak, whose self-interest is usually malevolent and whose dignity inevitably disgraced, there have been few Western ideas made more subject to unrelenting corrosion in modern times than the notion of “man”.

Today, it is a corrupted notion of “the Individual” that has fundamentally rendered the massive problems of the United States no longer merely political but philosophical. This, in turn, has been the result of two vastly different understandings of democracy of which the country has lost sight: aristocratic democracy, which is what the Founders had intended, and egalitarian democracy, which is what we’ve created, much to our peril. (To be clear: “Egalitarian” does not mean equality; it means the lowest common denominator having the highest possible cultural and political influence, whether elite or popular.)

For the Founding Fathers on this point, one is referred to Jefferson’s self-admitted search for the “natural aristoi” he wanted to cultivate for public service, and to his argument that education in a Republic must be “democratic and aristocratic”.  “Aristocratic” is used here not in the sense of baronies, barbicans, or bloodlines. The term is meant in its original, philosophical sense, best summarized by no less than Lord Tennyson himself, as “self-reverence, self-sufficiency and self-perpetuation”. One is also reminded of Madison’s and Hamilton’s almost obsessive fear of “mobocracy” and their revulsion towards the idea of direct democracy. (“When I mention the public, I mean the rational part of it; the ignorant and vulgar [are] unfit to manage its reins,” wrote Madison).

The concept of Time (the long view) inherent in the aristocratic outlook is its most important aspect. If modern Western capitalistic democracy is to survive, it must incorporate that which it has long regarded as its diametrical opposite—the aristocratic. If this democracy is to perish, it will continue to promote that which has been falsely regarded as its best element—the egalitarian (the here and now, the mass appetite). If things stay as they currently are, democracy in general will increasingly take on characteristics of the totalitarian, or what Jefferson warned of as an “elective despotism”, in which in the will of a leader will become totally responsible for the helpless whole.

The egalitarian is on a path of destruction. He creates for the short-term, because the present is an ordeal to get through, the past is invariably a source of evil, and the future is beyond his control or care. The short-term is the convenient, the instantaneous, the whetting of an appetite. Soon, the short-term becomes not only the economic, but the political, cultural, and social mentality of choice. This becomes: the short-term in financial practices, the short term in political expediency, the short term in art, the short term in education standards, the short-term in durability of a product or a service, the short-term in human relationships, in concentration and commitments…all of it leading to the current crop of human capital we have today. Then, the vox populi and its elite-mass representatives bemoan the “Individual” as a rapacious, quick-scheming wretch. 

Well, they should know. They created him.

At present in the West is a population of human capital that is not really fit for democracy as it must be maintained—certainly not economically. But “capitalism” is blamed for the decline and fall, while that same capitalism is being taken hostage by politically correct terminology in hopes that it may still be coaxed into showing up and saving the day. Changes of language have been gaining currency since the onset of the economic crises and intensifying since then. One hears calls for “communitarian capitalism,” “the social market,” “social entrepreneurship,” appeals for the end of something called “Gucci capitalism,” and so on. On the surface, all of this seems harmless, even positive. In fact, to many, including business leaders, these new categories represent an intelligently progressive step in the right direction, ostensibly respecting the productive ends of capitalism while mixing some social oversight into those ends.

But therein lies the danger. For, the philosophy at the root of such nuanced language is that the traditional center and spirit of capitalist enterprise, the individual—his individual gain, his search for profit, his self-interest, his personal distinction or even “glory”—represents something distasteful at best, irretrievably criminal and inherently corrupt at worst. Meanwhile, according to such thinking, only the social-communal-group mindset is the legitimate economic goal and, by extension, the morally superior one. The premise of capitalism is thus reversed, putting the group ends of distribution as the ethical objective above and beyond the protection of the fundamental means of production—the individual and his individual mind. The egalitarian becomes the goal, while the aristocratic—the main driver of standards, long-term planning, and generational perpetuation—becomes the object of resentment.

The aristocratic element of democracy is its long-term quality. It has reverence for the past and it plans for the future. This is the necessary instinct democracy needs anew and that capitalism—the practical support of that democracy—should be free of guilty-conscience modifiers or apologetic labels tacked onto it. Once upon a time in Europe, this view meant great forestry or mining fortunes made with the goal of sustaining generations of family name; in the US it became the outlook of Madison, Adams and Jefferson, who refer time and again to the need of a “gallant citizenry” to uphold their vast and incredible experiment. Such is the outlook of the kind of individual whom no great force—emperor, soldier, government—can replace.

-------------------------------------------------

Why Democracy Needs Aristocracy - The Imaginative Conservative

It's the End of the Week as We Know It

Rejoice: America has found its Voice, and it is the Voice of Kari Lake!

Some background on President-elect Trump’s newly appointed director for the Voice of America: the telegenic Kari Lake anchored KSAS-TV news in Phoenix, Arizona TV station for over twenty years, until contracting a severe case of MAGA fever. Fancying herself a political star in the making, Lake abandoned journalism in 2020 to become a MAGA favorite and a sycophant for Trump. After losing the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial race to Katie Hobbs (a Democrat), Ms. Lake served as Governor of Arizona (in her own mind) until November 2024, when she lost her bid for the U.S. Senate against undocumented Democrat Ruben Gallego.

Kari Lake’s qualifications for being Voice of America’s voice include (and are not limited to) her stubborn promotion of the unfounded claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 election; she called for the imprisonment of all who claimed otherwise. Lake also dabbled in spreading COVID misinformation and opposing vaccinations.

For her support of Trump, her refusal to knuckle under, and her insistence on doing her own research, Lake (according to Wikipedia) was terrorized in 2022 by unidentified Antifa members:

On November 7, 2022, Lake's campaign stated that on November 6, a campaign staffer "opened an envelope delivered to our campaign office that contained suspicious white powder. It was one of two envelopes that were confiscated by law enforcement" for testing. On November 11, the Phoenix Police Department said that the Arizona state laboratory had tested the items turned over to them by Lake's campaign, and found "no substance" inside. ¹ After this revelation, Lake's campaign stated that there actually had been three envelopes, with the first envelope being opened by the staffer having "a white powdery substance along with a hateful letter", but that the staffer threw the first envelope away, and that the trash was emptied before police were informed, with police being handed the other two envelopes.

Having survived that attack, Lake—who has described herself as “a proud election-denying deplorable”—advised her supporters, “We are going to put on the armor of God. And maybe strap on a Glock on the side just in case." As Voice of America’s new spokesperson, Lake will be able to share with the world her (and Trump’s) various beliefs: that American elections are fraudulent (except when Republicans win), that American policies are designed to hasten the worldwide victory of Communism, that America’s schools are “grooming centers” run by pedophiles, that the DC establishment (“Deep State”) is controlled by America-hating Marxists, and that Vladimir Putin is a more reliable source of critical national security intelligence than the CIA. She will also put the world on notice that America is currently under invasion by rapists, murderers, inmates of Central American mental institutions, mules for drug cartels, descendants of Pancho Villa, the ghosts of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, the entire population of Haiti, and the Biden crime family with its “demonic agenda” (Ms. Lake’s words).

What could possibly go wrong?

(This has been another edition of What Fresh Hell?)

----------------------------------------------

Kari Lake - Wikipedia

¹ Ironically, “no substance” was also the voters’ verdict on Lake’s gubernatorial campaign.

Today in "What Fresh Hell?"

“Petty Kash”? "Kash on the barrelhead"? "It's time to Kash out"? Credit where credit is due: Donald Trump’s selection of Kash Patel to be the new director of the FBI is, like Trump himself, simultaneously unorthodox and incredibly astute.

Mr. Patel’s resume¹ speaks for itself; notably, he worked in the first Trump administration, where he made such an impression on then-Attorney General William Barr that “Barr later wrote in his memoir that Mr. Patel would have become deputy F.B.I. director only “over my dead body.” Barr realized that Mr. Patel’s talents would have been wasted in a subordinate role; Kash Patel was born for bigger and better things. Barr’s opinion was confirmed by then-CIA director Gina Haspel who, being told that Trump would appoint Patel as Haspel’s deputy director, “said she wouldn't stand for it, and that she would resign before allowing Patel to assume a position as her deputy.”

The fake media, of course, is doing its best to portray the choice as controversial:

President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Saturday that he wants to replace Christopher A. Wray, the FBI director, with Kash Patel, a critic of the bureau who has called for shutting down the agency’s Washington headquarters, firing its leadership and bringing the nation’s law enforcement agencies “to heel.”

Mr. Patel has been closely aligned with Mr. Trump’s belief that much of the nation’s law enforcement and national security establishment needs to be purged of bias and held accountable for what they see as unjustified investigations and prosecutions of Mr. Trump and his allies.

The President-elect was unstinting in his praise for himself Patel:

Mr. Patel “played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability and the Constitution,” Mr. Trump said in announcing his choice in a social media post. He called Mr. Patel “a brilliant lawyer, investigator and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American people.”

Mr. Patel has already publicly stated the agenda he will pursue:

During a December 2023 appearance on Steve Bannon’s "War Room" podcast, Patel concurred with Bannon's assertions that Donald Trump is "dead serious" about his intent to seek revenge against his political enemies should he be elected in 2024. Patel stated:"We will go out and find the conspirators — not just in government, but in the media ... we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections ... We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice, and Steve, this is why they hate us. This is why we're ‘tyrannical’. This is why we're ‘dictators,’ because we're actually going to use the Constitution to prosecute them for crimes they said we have always been guilty of but never have.”

Patel’s devotion to the Constitution was never more in evidence than in an illustrated children’s book he wrote to keep youngsters from the clutches of the Deep State. Published in May 2022, The Plot Against the King was accompanied by this promotional blurb: “A key player in uncovering one of our nation’s biggest injustices tells the whole story—for kids! Kash Patel partners with Beacon of Freedom Publishing House, an imprint of BRAVE Books, to bring a fantastical retelling of Hillary’s horrible plot against Trump to the whole family. Full of fake heralds and keeper Komey’s spying slugs, this is a story of daring and danger. But never fear! Kash the Distinguished Discoverer will win the day.”

Courtesy of Amazon, here are the opening passages of Patel’s masterpiece:

“Once upon a time, in the Land of the Free, there lived a wizard called Kash the Distinguished Discoverer. Kash was known far and wide as the one person who could discover anything about anything. He found the Holy Grape, deep in the Enchanted Forest, and he discovered who had stolen the sleeping princess. The heralds, who spread important news across the land with their herald trumpets, had sung of Kash’s fame ever since he figured out that the Russionians were cheating in the jousting tournaments.

But all these quests had been easy for Kash, and as the sun rose and set over the Land of the Free, Kash found himself in grave danger, not of trolls and ogres, but of getting bored. That is, until the Choosing Day.

On Choosing Day the whole land gathered at the castle to choose the next ruler of the kingdom. The heralds had been announcing that Hillary Queenton would be queen. She says queenly things like ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ and ‘forsooth,’ and her last name is Queenton, after all.

But when the royal counter-uppers counted up the final votes, they realized the people had dared to choose the merchant Donald! The heralds and Hillary were horrified. Donald didn’t care what the heralds said about him, and he was determined to Make the Kingdom Great Again. Thus, King Donald moved into the castle, and everyone turned to head home.”

The online reviews of The Plot Against the King were mixed, to say the least:

“Michael”: This can’t be serious. I just don’t understand how an American can lose all that makes them American and worship a con-artist enough to believe a lie and even try to indoctrinate children with the lie. Maybe it’s written for Trump worshipping adults. It would be the correct reading level. Just terrible beyond belief.

“Meredith”: Horrible.

“Jaye”: Zero stars. Garbage book.

“Nick”: Each & every person that has given this book a negative review is a either a certifiably deranged, unhinged stooge or just a simple, easily brainwashed little sheep that also believes in unicorns, leprechauns & that there are more than TWO genders.

Patel has authored two sequels, most recently “The Return of the King,” which “is the final book in the Plot Against the King trilogy. This book continues the silly yet important journey of the MAGA King as he returns to take down Comma-la-la-la and reclaim his throne.”

If Kash Patel does not gain unanimous confirmation as director of the FBI, as well as a Pulitzer for children's literature, it will be further proof (as if any were needed) that the Deep State will have to be pried from the cold, dead fingers of Washington insiders by brave outsiders like the Distinguished Discoverer himself. My money is on Kash! 

-------------------------------------------------------

¹ Kash Patel - Wikipedia

Other sources:

Trump Says He Will Nominate Kash Patel to Run F.B.I. - The New York Times

Scoop: Gina Haspel threatened to resign over plan to install Kash Patel as CIA deputy

The DOGE Dodge

{Due to circumstances beyond my control, I will be writing more frequently about one of my least favorite subjects—politics.}

Roger Kimball, writing at American Greatness, all but salivates at the prospect that the second Trump administration will hamstring the federal government by putting “many tens of thousands” (whom Kimball calls “timerservers” rather than “employees”) out of work:

As all the world knows, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been tapped by President Trump to lead a new, blessedly temporary initiative called “The Department of Government Efficiency.” Their announced end date is July 4, 2026, by which time they hope to make some important inroads against the federal debt (currently an eye-watering and unsustainable $35 trillion dollars) ¹, cut billions in governmental expenditures, and fire many tens of thousands of timeservers on the government, which means the taxpayer, payroll.

As a fiscal conservative, Kimball has long insisted that “government efficiency” is an oxymoron, but now he has somehow convinced himself that “DOGE” will work wonders under the aegis of Musk and Ramaswamy, whose overlords at the Heritage Foundation have informed them that “most legal edicts in America today are not laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.”

Is it rude to point out that Musk and Ramaswamy are themselves “unelected”? They may not have the sense of privilege that comes from statutory job protections, and they may not “view themselves as immune from firing,” but, given their enormous wealth, they are not likely to lose sleep over it. In any case, they and Roger Kimball agree that it’s time for a DOGE:

This self-engorging, self-perpetuating monster represents “an existential threat to our republic,” Musk and Ramaswamy argue. They are right. And it is refreshing to see that they come not with white papers and committee recommendations but with real, implementable, enforceable proposals for reform. “We are entrepreneurs, not politicians,” they explain. “We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.”

Meaning—what, exactly? Musk and Ramaswamy, rather than negotiating their proposals with mere mortals, will simply issue edicts, diktats, even? Will they personally review the “tens of thousands” of regulations on the books of the myriad federal agencies, scrutinize the budgets of such agencies, and separate (by July 4, 2026) the wheat from the chaff of our labyrinthine, “self-engorging, self-perpetuating” federal government?

How do you dismantle Leviathan? ² According to Musk and Ramaswamy, you begin “by identifying and hiring a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions, and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws.”

In other words, the unelected Musk and Ramaswamy will themselves choose unelected experts to oversee the demolition of America’s administrative state. "Regulatory recissions" will return power to unelected corporate moguls. If necessary, DOGE will destroy the federal government to save it. Again, Elon and Vivek won’t have to waste their valuable time bickering with Congress; “executive action” will bypass such procedural hurdles. “Won’t a future president be able to nullify what reforms DOGE actualizes by countermanding executive orders?” Roger Kimball inquires. “No,” he explains, “because Congress will once again be put in the driver’s seat, as the Founders intended. “The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront,” Musk and Ramaswamy note, “but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.”

What are the limits of “executive orders” and presidential powers? We will see!

Finally, Kimball gets to the good stuff, i.e., “mass firings” of federal civil service workers:

This dismantling of the regulatory octopus will enable the real goals of DOGE, beginning with “mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” i.e., mass firings. “The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited.” ³

Heads will roll, which may lead skeptics to wonder, “Won’t that simply swell the ranks of the unemployed?” Not to worry; “Not if it is done right,” Kimball assures us. He quotes Musk’s and Ramaswamy’s solemn pledge: “Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector.”

The unelected “timeservers” shamelessly feeding from “the public trough” will be “treated with respect”? Those denizens of the Washington swamp, the ones who “harassed, investigated, impeached, indicted, and attempted to imprison President Trump,” even as they “worked overtime to upset any serious reforms he attempted”? Yes, they will all receive gold watches, instructions on filing for unemployment, and a letter explaining that they are no longer eligible for any federal pension benefits they may have accrued. “Best of luck in your future endeavors,” the letter will conclude. “Sincerely, your friends, Elon and Vivek.”

Repealing FDR’s “New Deal” has long been a priority of American conservatives.⁴ Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan railed against the New Deal; Grover Norquist advocated for metaphorically drowning the federal government in a bathtub; George W. Bush proposed privatizing Social Security; and Steve Bannon feverishly dreams of demolishing the “administrative state”. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (along with Trump’s other chief minion, Russell Vought) seem determined to bring that vision to fruition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inside Trump’s Second-Term Mission to Dismantle the Administrative State › American Greatness

¹ The federal debt was being described as “unsustainable” back when Musk and Ramaswamy were knee-high to a grasshopper. 

² The correct answer is, “One bite at a time.”

³ Having fewer employees would also reduce an agency’s ability to enforce whatever regulations remain in effect, making noncompliance with pesky health and safety rules that much easier.

⁴ From the beginning, the New Deal was seen by conservatives as an assault on free enterprise and as a gateway to socialism. Almost a century later, they have still not come to terms with the fact that Americans don’t mind an active (if sometimes over-active) federal government, nor are conservatives yet willing to concede that a regulated economy is not the same thing as a gulag.  

Wednesday with Pascal: The Man Date!

{Pascal the existential Russian blue cat had planned to present today a brief meditation on Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘Whose Justice? Which Rationality?’ However, that post will have to wait; instead, Pascal today reports excitedly on President-elect Donald Trump’s unprecedented, overwhelming, world-historic man date.}

“President Donald J. Trump won the 2024 presidential election with an historic mandate.” PRESIDENT TRUMP’S HISTORIC MANDATE | News | Donald J. Trump

Exciting news: Donald Trump has a man date! His man date is with a comely debutante named America, who is frantically wondering, based on some things she has heard about Trump, what might be in store for her. Will Trump try to grab America by her, um, “Deep State”? Will he take her furniture shopping? Charlie Kirk, a right-wing thought leader, recently spoke with former Trump speechwriter (he was fired in 2018) and budding matchmaker Darren Beattie.  Kirk asked Beattie what sort of man date America should expect:

CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): Darren, what is the mandate that the voters gave Donald Trump?

DARREN BEATTIE (GUEST): The mandate is to clean up our government and restore legitimacy to our government and set America — I keep saying, the stakes of this are not just a politically successful second term, which I fully expect. The stakes of this are much longer, much deeper, much more powerful. The stakes of this are if we do this right — and we need the right people to do it right — if we do this right, we're setting America up for success and freedom into the end of the century. This is setting America up, which was so close to the bottom of the trash heap. We've been brought so far down into the sewage pit by people like Biden, by people like Harris, by people like Merrick Garland, and I can go on and on and on, to the point that we're on a trajectory to being worse than a third world country because — it's like we don't even have some of the freedoms of third world countries. We have the squalor, but none of the freedom, worst of both worlds. That's where we were headed. This is a singular opportunity to set America aright, not just for this term, but for the remainder of the century and beyond. That's what's at stake.

Having been swept off her feet by Trump’s eloquence, charm, and detailed policy proposals, America will be set aright! She will be salvaged from the trash heap, lifted out of the sewage pit, and placed on the chopping block pedestal where she belongs! Goodbye squalor, hello freedom! Donald Trump knows how to treat a lady; just ask his wives, his porn-star pit stops, or whomever he met while cavorting with Jeffrey Epstein.

Rumor has it that the President-elect will begin his man date by taking America to dinner at the popular new bistro, Project 2025, followed by a gala concert featuring the nation’s most popular performers: Lee Greenwood, Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, Pete Hegseth, and Tulsi Gabbard. ¹ The evening will conclude with a patriotic rally at which Mike Pence and Taylor Swift will be hanged in Effigy. ²

Man dates like this don’t come along that often, so America should consider herself one lucky gal. She can play hard to get, she can be coy and flirtatious, she can try to remain chaste while being chased, but given what Trump is promising her, let’s face it: she’s going to be putting out for him for at least the next four years. If I were America, I would be sure to get a binding prenup.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charlie Kirk guest says "there will be Armageddon for any senator who does not step in line" with Trump's appointees | Media Matters for America

¹ Hegseth and Gabbard just announced that they will be joining Matt Gaetz and Robert Kennedy Jr. in a new band, “The Muskrats,” managed by Elon Musk! Their first single is about to drop: Muskrat Love

² “Effigy” is a small town in southern Indiana.

It's Like Christmas Morning!

At Newsmax, Monica Crowley provides the view from Planet MAGA:

Bobby Kennedy is an absolutely inspired choice for HHS, just like the rest of this cabinet. Every day, I wake up and it's like Christmas morning. Like what kind of incredible pick are we going to get today to fundamentally transform America? But in a good way, not in the way that Obama meant when he used that phrase, but actually to restore power back to the people — making America healthy again, making America strong again, making America great again. Every single cabinet pick that Trump has announced so far is incredibly accomplished and strong on their own as a team. This really is a dream team. We have not seen this kind of talent pool since the Founding Fathers.

Having been miraculously resurrected in November 2024, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton walked into a bar. The television in the bar was tuned to a station discussing the new president’s picks for his cabinet. The Four Founders listened to the roll call: “Pete Hegseth will be Secretary of Defense; Tulsi Gabbard will become Director of National Intelligence; Robert Kennedy will take over at Health and Human Services; and Congressman Matt Gaetz will be named Attorney General, presiding over the Department of Justice.”

Washington spoke first. “Esteemed colleagues,” he said, “we have met our match, talent-pool-wise. The ship of State will sail on!"

Jefferson nodded in agreement. “Titans of intellect and accomplishment continue to grace our shores and generously apply their talents to public service. Bless them as benefactors!”

Madison added, “The Republic could not be in better hands! Why, the rank and file must be dancing in the streets!”

Only Alexander Hamilton expressed doubt. “What,” he asked, “is a ‘Tulsi Gabbard’? Is it a species of animal, a vegetable, or a mineral? Does it even possess ‘intelligence’? Do we know enough about these worthies to approve their selection?"

They overheard the bartender muttering, “What, Bozo the Clown wasn’t available? Did Sideshow Bob turn down the offer?”  

Raising the tankards of ale that had been supplied to them, the quartet of 18^th-century statesmen, including Hamilton, joined in a toast: “To America’s Dream Team!” The bartender gave them a quizzical glance. “You guys aren’t from here, are you?” he said.

Washington answered on behalf of the group. “Indeed, sir, we are not. We are ambassadors from the pantheon of world-historic statesmen, brought here specifically to witness this epochal moment.” He queried the bartender, “What stable genius has selected these brilliant individuals to redeem the nation? Has Newt Gingrich finally gained control of the levers of government?”

“Nah,” said the bartender, "not Gingrich. Don't you guys follow the news? The mastermind behind this is Donald Trump.”

The Founders looked at one another in astonishment. “Did you say ‘Donald Trump’?” asked Jefferson in an incredulous tone. James Madison exclaimed, “You cannot be serious!” George Washington steadied himself against the bar. “My God,” he gasped, turning a whiter shade of pale, “not Trump! Surely,” he repeated, “not Trump! Anyone but Trump!” Alexander Hamilton mused, “There are many here among us who think that life is but a joke.”

The four headed for the door, leaving behind the tankards of beer. Washington paused before leaving. Speaking to the bartender, he said, “These are the times that try men’s souls, are they not?” To which the bartender replied, “Hey, come back in four years and we’ll talk about it.” He added, “Assuming we’re still here.”   

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Monica Crowley quote from Media Matters:

On Newsmax, Monica Crowley says about Trump's cabinet nominations: "We have not seen this kind of talent pool since the Founding Fathers" | Media Matters for America

Election Night with Pascal: Oh, the Humanity!

{Pascal the existential Russian blue cat has braced himself for the election results, whatever they may be. Here are his prepared post-election remarks; he asked me to release them now, as he might not be in the mood for it tomorrow.}

My fellow Americans:

I am happy to announce that, as of this morning (November 6, 2024), Happy Days Are Here Again! Or, depending on your perspective, It’s the End of the World as We Know It.

Either way, let us now unite, as Americans have always done, behind the winner of this election, assuming a winner has been determined and that the results will withstand the barrage of legal challenges, many of them quixotic, sure to come.  

Future generations will look back on this day as the moment when our quadrennial national nightmare ended, or at least paused to take a breath. 2024 will be remembered as the year that campaign rhetoric soared to heights never before imagined, featuring epithets like Tampon Tim, Island of Garbage, Comrade Kamala, Fascist, Marxist, Vermin, Scum, Poisoning the Blood of Our Nation, Couch F---er, Arnold Palmer’s 3-Wood Penis, etc. Of course, all that was just harmless hyperbole, mere partisan banter, and all in good fun! As Rodney King famously noted, we can get along, and this campaign proved it.

Were there assassination attempts? Yes—but they failed! Unlike 1968, this year’s glass of political violence was half-empty rather than half-full, probably because of the sincere Christian beliefs and commitment to non-violence espoused by both sides. Credit here especially goes to former President Trump, whose ability to turn the other cheek (literally) came in handy in Butler, Pennsylvania.  

As always, we will miss the campaign flyers filling our mailboxes, littering our porches, and hanging from our doorknobs. Here in Montana, we will miss being reminded every five minutes that we should not trust rich out-of-staters, Instagram cowboys, or victims of self-inflicted gunshot wounds; we will miss being told that having lost three fingers in a youthful meat-grinder mishap isn’t a qualification for the Senate, even with a flat-top haircut that may also have gone through a meat grinder. The price of liberty is endless unregulated campaign spending, but all good things must come to an end.

In closing, we should thank the billionaires and millionaires who sponsored this year’s contests, who paid for the constant annoyances and intrusions, and who graciously allowed the rest of us to vote. We should thank Elon Musk for not activating (so far) his Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) election-fraud-detection device. We should also thank the foreign nations—Russia, Iran, and China, for certain, and probably Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, and Israel—who, out of the goodness of their hearts, participated in our electoral process, as well as the millions of murderers, rapists, thieves, drug mules, drug dealers, and terrorists who flooded across our southern border to pay tribute to our free and fair democratic system. Let’s hope these rascals don't stick around and take all our jobs!   

Last but not least: we cannot find words to express our gratitude to the candidates themselves, so we won’t bother trying. Suffice it to say that, in the most important national election since the last one and until the next one, they did themselves and the nation proud by putting a stop to their campaigns (assuming they have stopped). It’s a shame there had to be a winner (assuming there has been a winner).

I don't know about you, but for me, 2028 can't get here slowly enough.

America: A Republic, Wrapped in a Constitution, Disguised as a Democracy

Not only do some people disapprove of democracy, but they often claim that America is not, and was never intended to be, a democracy. They quote Benjamin Franklin on our form of government (“A republic, if you can keep it”) and they cite our national Pledge of Allegiance (“And to the republic for which it stands”). They will then point out that ‘democracy’ is not substantive but only procedural, a means to the ends embodied in our Constitution. Eventually, they will resort to discussing ‘the tyranny of the majority,’ and from there the conversation will only get more tedious.

I have recently offered space to a few critics of democracy; it seems only fair to let defenders and promoters of democracy have a say. The following brief summary of American democracy is from a 2021 report titled Educating for American Democracy. The report was produced by an extensive and diverse group of American educators and scholars, and was intended to encourage better civic education about, and greater civic participation in, political matters.

The report begins with a preamble:

A self-governing people must constantly attend to historical and civic education: to the process by which the rising generation owns the past, takes the helm, and charts a course toward the future. The United States is the longest-lived constitutional democracy in the world, approaching its 250th anniversary in 2026. This occasion calls for both celebration and fresh commitment to the cause of self-government for free and equal citizens in a diverse society. Education in civics and history equips members of a democratic society to understand, appreciate, nurture and, where necessary, improve their political system and civil society: to make our union “more perfect,” as the U.S. Constitution says. This education must be designed to enable and enhance the capacity for self-government from the level of the individual, the family, and the neighborhood to the state, the nation, and even the world.

The word “civic” denotes the virtues, assets, and activities that a free people need to govern themselves well. When civic education succeeds, all people are prepared and motivated to participate effectively in civic life. They acquire and share the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for effective participation. Equity also is essential. High-quality education must be delivered to all; our form of government necessarily invests in all young people the chance to become civic and political leaders.

Yet civic and history education has eroded in the United States over the past 50 years, and opportunities to learn these subjects are inequitably distributed. Across the same time period, partisan and philosophical polarization has increased. A recent surge in voter participation has been accompanied by dangerous degrees of misinformation and tension, even rising to violence. Dangerously low proportions of the public understand and trust our democratic institutions. Majorities are functionally illiterate on our constitutional principles and forms. The relative neglect of civic education in the past half-century is one important cause of our civic and political dysfunction.

It is easier to say what American government is not (it is not a monarchy or a dictatorship) than what, precisely, it is. The report’s authors take up the challenge:

The United States was called both a republic and a democracy when it was founded in the late eighteenth century. “Republic” is the only word used in the U.S. Constitution to refer to our form of government, when the United States pledges that it will “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.

Yet Alexander Hamilton described the new constitution in the New York ratification debates as a “representative democracy.” The framers did not all share one definition of “republic” or make a consistent distinction between republics and democracies. Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the word “republic” covered a very wide range of governments. Jefferson explained to John Taylor in 1816 that he used the word to “mean a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority.” Here Jefferson defined “republic” to mean what many today would call a direct democracy.

In recent decades, political theorists have used the word “republic” in specific (but debated) ways—for example, to name systems in which civic virtue is strongly emphasized, majority rule is fundamental but also limited by durable structures of government, or certain forms of liberty are paramount. A democracy is widely defined as a political system in which ultimate power lies with the whole people and in which all citizens share power equally at decisive moments, such as during elections. Both concepts convey popular sovereignty—but the former emphasizes the importance of institutions and structure and the latter the importance of participation, electoral and otherwise. The former term tends to be held up by those who celebrate liberty; the latter by those who celebrate equality.

The Declaration of Independence, however, makes clear self-government depends on both liberty and equality. It is, after all, the work of free and equal citizens. It requires both order and participation. The phrase “constitutional democracy” honors both sides of the debates. The system that the framers (and especially the Federalists) created had some aspects that were republican and some that were democratic, both in their own vocabulary and in modern parlance. The decision to deploy representation rather than mechanisms of direct democracy was and is seen as “republican.” The decision to elect the president from the people as a whole, even if through an electoral college, was seen as democratic.

Over time, that process of election has become increasingly democratic. Between 1776 and 1807, some women had the right to vote and used it, but then that right was revoked. In 1800, a substantial majority of American men were not permitted to vote. Voting rights first began to expand significantly during the Jacksonian era, such that by 1840, most free white men could cast ballots. In the wake of the Civil War, the passage of the 15th Amendment (1870) guaranteed all men, including freed slaves, the right to vote in federal and state elections. The formal disenfranchisement of women at the national level ended only in 1920. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 enshrined the general principle of one person, one vote, removing many barriers to African American voting; the 26th amendment (1971) extended the franchise to 18-year-olds. These and other voting reforms over the last 150 years have made the United States much more democratic than it was at its founding.

The culture of the United States has also grown increasingly democratic, with wider commitment to the ideal that everyone can and must have a voice in governing. Institutions such as universal schooling and the mass news media sustain this ideal. Alexis de Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’ (1835/1840) described the American governments (state and federal) as constitutional republics, but discerned that by the Jacksonian era, America’s predominant political culture had become democratic. He chose the title of his classic work with an eye to the tension between our complex forms of representative government largely devoted to sustaining liberty and political equality, and our broader demand for social equality and direct empowerment.

Twentieth-century American leaders strongly and frequently endorsed democracy, and they referred to the United States as a democracy. For example, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, President Ronald Reagan emphasized that the Second World War had been fought for democracy, saying, “One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.” President Barack Obama emphasized the connection between democracy and citizen participation: “Democracy was never meant to be transactional—you give me your vote; I make everything better. It requires an active and informed citizenry.”

The United States, of course, also remains a republic. If that word has had one consistent core over its more than 2,000-year history, it means a government that belongs to the public (‘res publica’ means “the public’s affair”), not to a monarch, a specific class, or a foreign power. The United States is thus a republic organized as a constitutional democracy.

Our form of government, call it what you will, has held up for 235 years. It’s messy, it’s noisy, it’s annoying, it’s imperfect, and what it produces, as often as not, is nothing to brag about. Still, until we come up with something better, it’s what we’ve got; let’s keep doing our best to make it work.    

-------------------------------------------------------------

Educating-for-American-Democracy-Report-Excellence-in-History-and-Civics-for-All-Learners.pdf

 

Saturday Lecture: The Pobedonotsev Gambit

{Konstantin Pobedonotsev (1827-1907) was a legal scholar who played an important role in the writing of Russia’s judicial reforms of 1864. In 1865, he became a tutor to the Tsar’s family and directed the education of the future Alexander III. In 1880, he was appointed procurator of the Holy Synod, an office he would hold until 1905. He also supervised the education of Nicholas II. Pobedonotsev’s resistance to democracy and to democratic reforms helped to further radicalize the Russian intelligentsia, which was radical enough to begin with.}  

Konstantin Pobedonotsev, from "On Parliamentary Democracy":

The ambitious man comes before his fellow-citizens and strives by every means to convince them that he more than any other is worthy of their confidence. What motives impel him to this quest? It is hard to believe that he is impelled by disinterested zeal for the public good. 

On the day of polling, few give their votes intelligently; these are the influential electors whom it has been worthwhile to convince in private. The mass of electors, after the practice of the herd, vote for one of the candidates nominated by the committees. Not one exactly knows the man, or considers his character, his capacity, his convictions; all vote merely because they have heard his name so often. It would be vain to struggle against this herd. If a level-headed elector wished to act intelligently in such a grave affair, and not to give way to the violence of the committee, he would have to abstain altogether, or to give his vote for his candidate according to his conviction. However he might act, he could not prevent the election of the candidate favored by the mass of frivolous, indifferent, and prejudiced electors.

Each vote, representing an inconsiderable fragment of power, by itself signifies nothing; an aggregation of votes alone has a relative value. In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their henchmen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it.

Elections in no way express the will of the electors. The popular representatives are in no way restricted by the opinions of their constituents, but are guided by their own views and considerations, modified by the tactics of their opponents. In reality, ministers are autocratic, and they rule, rather than are ruled by, Parliament. They attain power, and lose power, not by virtue of the will of the people, but through immense personal influence, or the influence of a strong party which places them in power or drives them from it. They dispose of the force and resources of the nation at will, they grant immunities and favors, they maintain a multitude of idlers at the expense of the people, and they fear no censure while they enjoy the support in Parliament of a majority which they maintain by the distribution of bounties from the rich tables which the State has put at their disposal. In reality, the ministers are as irresponsible as the representatives of the people. Mistakes, abuse of power, and arbitrary acts, are of daily occurrence, yet how often do we hear of the grave responsibility of a minister? It may be once in fifty years a minister is tried for his crimes, with a result contemptible when compared with the celebrity gained by the procedure.

In theory, the elected candidate must be the favorite of the majority; in fact, he is the favorite of a minority, sometimes very small, but representing an organized force, while the majority, like sand, has no coherence, and is therefore incapable of resisting the clique and the faction. In theory, the election favors the intelligent and capable; in reality, it favors the ambitious and impudent. It might be thought that education, experience, conscientiousness in work, and wisdom in affairs, would be essential requirements in the candidate; in reality, whether these qualities exist or not, they are in no way needed in the struggle of the election, where the essential qualities are audacity, a combination of impudence and oratory, and even some vulgarity, which invariably acts on the masses; modesty, in union with delicacy of feeling and thought, is worth nothing.

All the important actions of Parliament are controlled by the leaders of the party, who inspire all decisions, who lead in combat, and profit by victory. The public sessions are no more than a spectacle for the mass. Speeches are delivered to sustain the fiction of Parliamentarism, but seldom does a speech by itself affect the decision of Parliament in a grave affair. Speechmaking serves for the glory of orators, for the increase of their popularity, and the making of their careers; only on rare occasions does it affect the distribution of votes. Majorities and minorities are usually decided before the session begins. Such is the complicated mechanism of the Parliamentary farce; such is the great political lie which dominates our age.

The history of mankind bears witness that the most necessary and fruitful reforms, the most durable measures, emanated from the supreme will of statesmen, or from a minority enlightened by lofty ideas and deep knowledge, and that, on the contrary, the extension of the representative principle is accompanied by an abasement of political ideas and the vulgarization of opinions in the mass of the electors.

Pobedonotsev After Dark?

(Drawing, but not captioned, by Priscilla Meyer)

 

Americans Against Democracy

Not only is democracy overrated (according to its critics), but it was actively opposed by the bigwigs who designed our constitutional system. As Steve Hanke of the libertarian Cato Institute explains, “America’s Founding Fathers were skeptical and anxious about democracy. They were aware of the evils that accompany a tyranny of the majority. The Framers of the Constitution went to great lengths to ensure that the federal government was not based on the will of the majority and was not, therefore, democratic. The Constitution was designed to further the cause of liberty, not that of democracy. “Democracy” and “freedom” are not interchangeable words. Expanding democracy is a slogan which requires great caution. It can easily result in elected tyranny.”

The anti-democratic stance of the constitution’s authors is acknowledged even by advocates of democracy, such as Douglas Amy, a long-time Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College:

One persistent myth surrounding the framers of the Constitution is that they were strong champions of democracy.  However, the fact is that many of the founding fathers were profoundly uncomfortable with what we today think of as democracy: government of, by, and for the people. Consider some of the typical anti-democratic sentiments expressed by many of the framers:

• Edmund Randolph argued that the evils from which the country suffered originated in “the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
• Elbridge Gerry spoke of democracy as “the worst of all political evils.”
• George Clymer argued that elected officials need not pay attention to what their constituents want: “a representative of the people is appointed to think for not with his constituents”
• Roger Sherman hoped that “the people have as little to do as may be about the government.”
• According to Charles Pickney, “the theoretical nonsense of an election of Congress by the people . . . is clearly and practically wrong, [and] it will in the end be the means of bringing our councils into contempt.”
• John Jay opined that “the people who own the country ought to govern it.”
• Alexander Hamilton wrote that “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.  The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.”

The framers were deeply suspicious of giving too much power to “the people.”  As the American historian Richard Hofstadter observed, the framers found themselves in the difficult position of ‘a man who has no faith in the people but insists that government be based upon them. There was no better expression of this dilemma than that of Jeremy Belknap, a New England clergyman, who wrote to a friend: ‘Let it stand as a principle that government originates from the people; but let the people be taught that they are not able to govern themselves.’”

The framers did what they could to purge our constitutional order of the democratic virus, but the virus eventually overcame institutional barriers and infected the nation. At least, such was the view of South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun, one of antebellum America’s most distinguished statesmen, who was also an ardent advocate for slavery. In his defense of ‘states’ rights,’ Calhoun proposed a kind of distributive democracy, in which simple numerical majorities would be replaced by what he called ‘concurrent majorities,’ meaning separate majorities of each important sector of society. Calhoun intended that his system would keep the federal government at bay against a coalition of southern states, that it would enable property owners to stand up against the unpropertied masses, and that business owners would be empowered to resist the demands of workers.  As Wikipedia notes, Calhoun’s “A Disquisition on Government systematically presents his arguments that a numerical majority in any government will typically impose a despotism over a minority unless some way is devised to secure the assent of all classes, sections, and interests and, similarly, that innate human depravity would debase government in a democracy.”

Calhoun did not live to see either the Civil War or the later efforts to expand the reach of popular democracy. However, his fame has endured: “In 1957, a five-member "special" committee, led by Senator John F. Kennedy, selected Calhoun as one of the five senators to enter the newly created senatorial pantheon "hall of fame". This "hall of fame" was established to fill five vacant portrait spaces in the Senate Reception Room.” The Wikipedia article adds, “Recently, Calhoun's reputation has suffered, particularly due to his defense of slavery.” You think?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Democracy Versus Liberty | Cato Institute

The Constitution: Its Undemocratic Origins | Second Rate Democracy

John C. Calhoun - Wikipedia

Much Ado About Democracy