What liberals really think of democracy … they think it’s icky

This is the lead of a Dan Balz article in the Washington Post:

Rudolph W. Giuliani leads the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Republican voters describing him as the field’s strongest leader and most electable candidate in the 2008 general election, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. But the Republican contest remains unsettled just three months before the first votes will be cast, and in comparison with fellow New York politician Hillary Rodham Clinton, Giuliani is a far less solid front-runner.

The “contest remains unsettled just three months before the votes will be cast”? Wow, that implies that the normal thing would be for the contest to be over with and settled, three months before anyone has voted, like in the Democratic party, where it’s now considered a foregone conclusion that Hillary will win, or like in the EU, where if the leaders don’t like the results of an election, they cancel it and find another way to achieve the same result. Anything short of a managed, EU-style election leaves a dried-up liberal like Dan Balz feeling unsettled and out of sorts. Liberals want elections to be decided before they even occur, because an election implies the existence of a majority that possesses power—a power outside liberal control. Also, when things are decided by election, that means the majority has control and the minority doesn’t, which is unequal and unfair. The only way to avoid such inequality is to have the unelected elite running everything, in the name of good principles and for the benefit of all. This is all the more necessary when liberal education and the liberal culture have turned the populace into a bunch of debased demi-humans incapable of governing themselves.

The first commenter at Lucianne.com had the same reaction to Balz’s lead that I did:

Silly me… I thought it was supposed to be unsettled until the LAST VOTE is COUNTED.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 04, 2007 11:25 PM | Send