Americans are going to come to this post late – most are sleeping as we are waking up over here. Pity, because this starts with America.
The bulk of this interview with Town Hall’s Katie Pavlich is about the left’s War on Women. Glenn Reynolds quotes early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story warning of demagogues who would flatter the people that they may betray them. Katie Pavlich takes that up and says that the left has this habit of accusing their opponents of doing exactly what they’re doing [wrong]. for example, being haters, for example being discriminatory.
This War on Women campaign by the feminists, she goes into detail over, is actually about pulling the wool over the eyes of women. Far from emancipating women, this battery of feminist campaigners aim to enslave women by making them dependent on the state teat in order to save them from those great monsters called men.
It might seem as if Katie falls into the same trap, wanting women protected but she’s referring to the constitutional protection, e.g. carrying arms. The rest is up to her and to the judiciary to eventually determine if she did wrong or not.
It’s been a long time in the preparation this weaning of women off the constitution and onto “laws to protect them” and the preconditions were to create a situation where women see men as Enemy by definition. Thereafter, people like Michelle Obama blatantly lie and so on.
My interest, for this post, is in the unfortunate words “left” and “liberal”. Readers here have pointed out that these are flawed words and yes, they are appellations of convenience for sure. And yet there is truth in Katie’s words about the tactics of those labelled “left”, about Common Purpose over here, about all the rest of what we blog about, e.g. the left’s abusive Human Rights Commission, so beloved of terrorists and crims.
So, if we are to drop the words “left” and “right”, how can we describe the really quite radically, diametrically opposite views on the protective structure of society?
Some have suggested calling the opposite views statist and libertarian.
Coming to my rescue is this youtube, a bit over ten minutes long and probably worth every minute.
We have perceptions, no? And one of those perceptions is that democracy is, by definition, good, autocracy is bad. But even there, we are caught in the same lexical trap as to what is coercive and bad, what is more moderate and gives people breathing space. And those two extremes fail to include other options.
In its more developed form:
Now, looking at what we call “left” at this time, where are they on this chart? They want personal freedom for themselves but at the same time, want the state to control those they don’t like [what they call the right]. Therefore they are statist, therefore they are at the controlling end of the sliding scale.
They depend on government to legislate, hence bansturbation. No no, they say, we’re liberal, meaning freedom for all. Sorry, no they’re not – if they call for bans, for forcing people to accept wrong things, e.g. gay”marriage”, on pain of incarceration and ruin, then they are not for freedom at all – they are for state interference and control.
So they are at the left side in the chart above. So where are we?
Moving over to the right side of the chart, as the clip shows, total personal licentiousness, with no rules to protect, is just as bad, as anarchy leads to despotism [see Lord of the Flies].
Superimposing recognizable forms of government today over the model, it comes out something like this:
The narrator then gets onto democracy, using the example of the French Revolution and other places where mob rule sways, where no one is safe, where the oligarchs [EU?] flatter and coerce politically ignorant people into wrong choices, thus democracy ceases to be seen as the be all and end all.
America chose to become a republic, not a democracy. This is more easily seen in the final two forms which run head to head:
Democracy, being unstable and prone to the malleable masses by the puppetmasters – we see this right at this moment in the GE2015 election result – ends up with two forms on offer to society:
Democracy always produces oligarchs. Regarding autocracy, the rule of kings is long gone and the despots today are presidents, e.g. Mugabe. Yet this is supposedly in a “democracy”, with rigged elections. Our elections are rigged too – there’s been widespread admission that the system failed the 4 million.
Republics such as America has powers defined and prescribed. There are many times unconstitutional things have been done, e.g. the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the trampling of states rights by Obama but the system, if it remains believed in by almost all, has proven quite resilient.
Yet the oligarchs have tried to “interpret” the Constitution to suit themselves, to bypass it. The non-left half of the people have demanded government stick to the original sense of the Constitution because in the end, all anyone has for protection in America is the power of God for those who believe and the power of the Constitution for everyone.
A republic takes care of all the rights the oligarchs are using the courts to redefine, e.g. the ECHR. Cameron says he’ll withdraw the UK from it, meaning from its abuses but what he really means is under his own oligarchical rule of whim. We saw the whim in forcing through gay “marriage”.
Politicians have shown that they’re the last people to be running anything, unless it is within a strict framework imposed by a constitution.
The monarch or house of review
There really does need to be a higher body. It could be a president who stays aloof from politics, it could be a senate, it could be a nominal monarch. The job is the same – protecting the constitution and its ability to protect the people from the tyranny of the oligarch and majority whim.
Magna Carta was not about the people, per se, it was about the barons and their rights. It was between the Autocrat and the Oligarch. Yet it’s been defined as being for the people.
Were there a nominal monarch dealing with protection sovereignty of the nation and of its constitution, plus the ceremonial side, the meeting and greeting, the pageantry, the land would still be administered by a legislature of pollies, a lower house but the upper house would not be at their whim.
The people might even elect half of them but eminent, non-political people could make up the rest. The issue of those kicked upstairs is not such an issue – they’re usually the rebels, the ones who get in the way, so they are suited to an upper house.
The constitution then defines the powers and depending on the quality of people on the commission, something not unlike the U.S. Constitution can be produced, provisions changeable only by a two thirds majority of the people plus agreement by all houses, including the judiciary.
Monarchy, seen in this light, is Wills and Kate, Frederik and Mary. The monarchy we have now might well be Welf, even reptilian, as some say but I’m not referring to them. Either way, the powers are severely limited by protocol, such that the monarch would act if, say, there were a two million signature petition.
And for the today’s “left”, this system would take care of the very minorities covered by the egregious social policy in this country, it would tax little, permit only a flat tax of say, 25% and its main business would be business – small and medium. It would have checks on monopolies and trusts.
But who would be independent enough or representative enough of the will of the people to be on the constitutional committee?