Red Pill 101: Democracy
Leftists who call Trump a threat to democracy are correct. The President could vastly improve the USA by making the country less democratic.
by Gaius Marcius
Welcome to Fash the Nation’s exclusive introduction to the Alt Right! If you were recently disillusioned by Gavin McInnes and his pals, if you are fed up that your MAGA hat provokes verbal (or physical) confrontations in public, or if you just wonder why there are so many smirking green frogs on social media these days, this is the place for you. Red Pill 101 is an ongoing essay series that explains the difference between Alt Right ideas and conservative GOP rhetoric. If you already know why Republicans constantly lose important battles to the Left, share this series with friends and loved ones who don’t want to be trapped in the CNN thought prison anymore.
Every red pill is a recognition that some piece of conventional wisdom is false, but some of the falsehoods that plague the modern West are easier to recognize than others. Equality, for instance, simply does not exist, and it does not take much politically incorrect noticing to realize this. Multiculturalism is so objectively damaging to society that people only support it so long as its effects are hidden from them by the media. Other lies, however, are more subtly dangerous. Democracy has a long history in the United States and was at one time an inspiration to patriots and statesmen. Over time the association between democracy and America become so strong, that at present calling something democratic is just another way of calling it good. The ideal of democracy served America well when the country was a homogeneous nation living consciously within the European tradition. But the democratic conviction that citizens should be treated equally under the law weakened as more diversity (and therefore more de facto inequality) was introduced to the United States. In practical terms, democracy today means the tyranny of the majority, which in many places devolves into hysterical, irrational mob rule.
Politicians still employ rhetoric about “our democratic way of life” and “our democratic institutions” in the hope that nostalgic voters will happily imagine the Norman Rockwell world—the America that no longer exists—rather than angrily demand solutions for the Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters who rule our streets. The funny thing is, when a politician flatters voters by telling them how important they are, he knows that each individual voter has basically no power. Electoral power is divided among all voters, so the more democratic the country becomes, the less power any one citizen can wield. Politicians love democracy because the burden of organizing for political action rests on the citizens who are least likely to have the time or inclination to be effective. It does not matter if you call your representative to complain, he does not have to respond until thousands call. If every citizen has an equal say in politics, then no one has a voice loud enough to be heard. This paradox of democracy was noted by the child prodigy Dashiell Robert Parr in the unintentionally politically incorrect Pixar film The Incredibles:
Dash’s quip sounds like overwrought, silly hyperbole until you see major institutions abjectly pandering to the democratic impulse. Time magazine created a tangible version of the “nobody is special” paradigm in 2006 by not choosing an individual as Person of the Year but instead giving that coveted prize to everybody. This sort of unfettered democracy has subtle hints of Soviet style collectivism about it, so conservatives are suspicious enough to occasionally criticize it. Glenn Beck will talk your ear off about the totalitarian impulses hidden behind the trappings of democracy. Even less ideologically committed humorists grasp the failings of collective action.
One of the classic lines that Cold War conservatives used to criticize totalitarianism and faux democracy is Bertolt Brecht’s quip about East Germany. When the people rebelled against the so-called Democratic Republic, Brecht suggested that if the people would not act the way the party wanted, East Germany could avoid future embarrassments by finding new people who were more compliant:
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?”
Conservatives use this quote to contrast totalitarianism with the true democracy of the USA, but thanks to cultural Marxism, Brecht’s quote is most applicable to post-1965 American politics. When access to political power is controlled by voters, those seeking power have two paths to victory. They can either work hard to solve the problems facing their constituents, or they can find less demanding dupes to put in the voting booth. Handing out power based on electoral victory is a perverse incentive that encourages politicians to turn their energy away from public service and toward campaigning and electoral tricks. The greatest trick of all is convincing citizens to dilute what little power they have by bringing in more voters. This is basic supply and demand; the more votes in the country the less each vote is worth.
The American political class has been slowly electing a new people through mass immigration and intentionally favoring the less intelligent and less politically sophisticated from the third world to build an easily controlled populace. Mass immigration is the direct result of democracy. The American people do not want more immigration, but it continues because migrants solve the problem of democracy for the politicians.
The Left is open about their intention to displace white Americans, but few people realize that the GOP is no better than the Left. Occasionally, a clever Republican will acknowledge the Left’s plans for immigration, while promising that the GOP can outwit the Democrats by appealing to “naturally conservative” Hispanics. Do you see the trap laid out in plain sight? The GOP, no less than the East Germans and the Democrats, is willing to elect a new people. Think of the brazenness of it! A so-called conservative comes before the people who elected him and proudly declares that he would rather import truckloads of new constituents rather than conserve the jobs, communities, and the very existence of the citizens who put him in office.
The democracy red pill is hard to accept because it reveals how alone the American people really are. The people and institutions we trusted to protect our interests not only betrayed us, they did so by means of the very principle that is supposed to give power to the people. There is a silver lining. Other red pills merely change our perspective, but immediate political steps can alter democracy to reduce the perverse incentives that distract politicians from their constituents.
Voting must be made more difficult so only the most motivated, informed, and proactive citizens will actually show up. Eligible citizens should have to fill out a voter registration form months in advance, present multiple forms of ID at the polling station, and only vote on election day. Early voting, automatic registration and other conveniences disproportionately favor the least responsible citizens and encourage fraud. New citizens should only receive voting privileges slowly. After earning citizenship an immigrant should be required to wait five years before voting in local elections, ten years for state elections, and fifteen years for national elections. This will create a disincentive for pandering to immigrants and shift political energy back toward fulfilling the wishes of the historic American nation. As harsh as these measures sound, they are surely on the right track, because the Left wants the exact opposite. Hopefully Trump’s voter fraud commission headed by Kris Kobach will begin the process of rolling back the democratic impulses of American politics.
There are many other aspects of domestic policy that work in tandem with democracy against the interests of the American people. Before we examine those, however, there is one huge policy arena that has been costing lives and treasure in the name of democracy since at least 1917. We will next explore foreign policy, the government’s attempt to inflict democracy on ignorant and innocent peoples worldwide.