True democracy is not about elections

Tim W. writes:

It’s interesting that liberals brag about how many times they’ve extended the voting franchise, yet they want an ever-expanding group of issues decided by unelected judges and bureaucrats. And they express horror that “wedge issues” might polarize the electorate, as if elections are supposed to be events where we all come together and sing Kum-Ba-Ya.

LA replies:

From the perspective of the present maturity of advanced liberalism, the celebrated expansion of the franchise over the last 200 years can now be understood in its true meaning. The ultimate end of liberalism is not the universal franchise. The ultimate end of liberalism is the affirmation of the equality of all persons. While equal voting rights is an important way station toward that end, the end transcends, and must supersede, mere voting.

Voting is not the true end of equality, because voting means that a majority gets its way in relation to a minority, and that is unequal; after all, why should some people get their desires and preferences realized, and others not, just because the members of the former group happen, through no virtue of their own, to be in the majority? Why should the majority experience the joy and fulfillment of victory, and the minority the pain and humiliation of defeat? This is a violation of the equal worth of all persons and of their respective needs and wishes. It makes a mockery of the very notion of a common humanity. Similarly, why should the majority of a country’s voting population have the power to pass laws which maintain exclusions toward other peoples, such as national borders?

Beyond such imperfect realizations of equality as the universal franchise and majority rule, the true end of equality is that all persons without discrimination have the same rights, meaning that their choices are of equal value, except for choices that involve discrimination and inequality. And such a truly egalitarian order of society can only be assured by non-elected magistrates who are entirely free of popular, majoritarian pressures and whose mission is the equal freedom of all.

In short, the true meaning of democracy can only be fulfilled when elections are effectively banished and nations no longer govern themselves.

If this were not true, why would President Bush, the world’s most vocal champion of democracy, have approved every step forward of the EU toward the political unification of Europe under a unaccountable regime in which the peoples of Europe have no right to determine their own laws, in which such elections as do occur are canceled when they conflict with the desires of the rulers (the EU Constitution is the major example of this), and imposed egalitarianism is the rule, proceeding not from elections but from bureaucratic bodies and judges who speak for all of Europe?

Jeff C. writes:

I think you’re suggesting here that Bush knows that the end goal is unelected rulers whose mission is the equal freedom of all, while consciously choosing to be a hypocrite and promote democracy. I’m not sure that is accurate, as Bush considers himself a principled man—and indeed, in the past he has stood up for his beliefs however wrong they actually are. Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.

On the other hand, there is little doubt in my mind that Hillary knows the true end goal of liberalism, has known for decades, and is cunningly working to achieve such goals.

LA replies:

No, I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying that everyone, including Bush, is part of the same drift of liberalism. The tyrannical nature of the EU in general and of Britain in particular is not exactly a secret. The EU’s project to destroy national sovereignty is not exactly a secret. Bush either consciously supports these goals or doesn’t see them as objectionable. Either way, the reason is the same. Bush believes in equality, non-discrimination, and transnational integration. The EU believes in equality, non-discrimination, and transnational integration. It is impossible for Bush, as a transnational liberal, to oppose any project based on those ideals.

People constantly act as though political actors can only be blamed for results they consciously intend. It is irrelevant. What matters are the ideas to which political actors subscribe. A person who supports the principles of liberalism is a liberal, whether or not he describes himself as one.. A person who applauds the EU is a supporter of the imposition of transnational egalitarian tyranny on the continent of Europe, whether or not he himself would put it in those terms. A person who calls for the inclusion of Turkey in the EU is a person who supports the Islamization of Europe, whether or not he himself would put it in those terms.

Jeff C. replies:

I don’t agree that it is irrelevant. The distinction is very relevant because, even though both are liberals, there exists the possibility that a person who is ignorant about the course of their beliefs and actions can change. VFR’s positions, one would hope, could eventually rub off on them. On the other hand, however, someone like Hillary, who knows the end result of her beliefs, is an intractable enemy.

LA replies:

I agree that a person who was truly naive and didn’t see where his ideals were tending, could be converted once he realized the bad nature of his ideals.

But as I said in my earlier reply to you, it would be impossible for any sentient person not to know that supporting the EU means supporting the end of national sovereignty. It would be impossible for any sentient person not to know that supporting Turkey’s membership in EU means supporting the Islamization of Europe. Since Bush does support those things, he must see them as in conformity with democracy as he understands it. Which means that the ultimate meaning of democracy for Bush is not elections and the self-government of a people; it is the administered equality of the whole human race. QED.

To restate the argument, there is an inherent logic and direction to liberalism. This logic and direction exists independently of the beliefs and preferences of individual liberals. Someone who subscribes to liberalism is signing onto something that must lead to other things he doesn’t necessarily see at this moment. But once he sees the bad results of his beliefs, and assuming he doesn’t like them, the only way he will be able to oppose them is by renouncing his underlying liberalism. The overwhelming majority of liberals are not willing to give up liberalism. They are not willing to become anti-liberal traditionalists. So they stay with liberalism, and ultimately end up consciously supporting the evil results they may not even have imagined when they first signed on to liberalism.

So to me Bush and Hillary are not that different. Hillary may be a more active and conscious transnational progressive, Bush may be (I emphasize may be) a more passive one. But they’re in the same train, heading in the same direction, because they are both liberals who believe in equality and non-discrimination as the highest values of society.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 05, 2007 05:00 PM | Send