Unable to imagine how their idol, Hillary Clinton, could have lost the 2016 presidential election to hated-by-all-the-smart-people Donald Trump, a couple of professors at New York University, in 2017, staged a creative experiment (https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8889).
To test their theory that Hillary only lost because hateful stupid American voters were prejudiced against a woman, the profs re-enacted the presidential debate as close to verbatim as possible, down to facial expressions and hand gestures–with one difference. In the re-enactment, Donald Trump is a woman and Hillary Clinton is a man.
Imagine their horror when the audience found Hillary even more revolting as a man–downright “punchable,” one woman said–and Trump even more likeable as a woman.
So much for their theory. See? There is such a thing as a dumb political scientist.
I only refer back to this weird incident because I and several other observers think there’s a good chance Hillary will again be the Democrats’ presidential candidate.
She has not gotten more likeable since 2016. Let’s hope she takes the whole evil party down in flames with her.
Democrats want to undo the 2016 election, they say, to “save the Nation” and protect America from threats to “democracy.” This is crapola. It has always been crapola, and always will be.
From the Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” Not a “democracy.”
Our country’s founders knew their history. They saw in classical Greek democracy–vividly clear in Thucydides’ history of the war between Athens and Sparta–a recipe for self-destruction. To them “democracy” was a nice name for hysteria. For example: Athens self-destructed, and lost the war with Sparta that they were winning at the time, by picking a fight–for no reason but pure arrogant foolishness–with Syracuse. Athens sent her army to Sicily to attack Syracuse, which was richer and stronger and more populous than Athens. As for the Athenian expedition, no one came home; and before much longer, the Spartans were tearing down Athens’ walls and imposing a puppet government to replace the democracy. Attacking Syracuse wasn’t the only foolishness indulged in by the democracy in the war, but it was the worst folly they could think of.
Our founders wanted nothing to do with democracy. It’s pure majority rule: and not only does the majority sometimes get completely carried away with some self-destructive project from which no reason can deter them, but it also has a habit of riding rough-shod over the minority. Just imagine a whole country run as Democrats now run our House of Representatives, and you’ll get the picture.
Our founders also studied the example set by Rome. The Romans had a republic. Instead of rule by mere majority, Roman government was operated by elected representatives, with two main branches of government (executive and legislative) and a system of checks and balances. The Greek historian Polybius praised the Roman system for being more stable and more just than anything they had in Greece.
But Rome couldn’t keep her republic. Our founders knew that, and decided to improve on Rome’s model by adding a third branch of government, the judiciary, and by writing everything down, with changes only to be made by a clearly-defined amendment process. They also tried to protect the states from being engulfed by the central government. We’re still working on that today. The great weakness of Rome’s republic was that it was never finished; it was always a work in progress; there was always an element of making it up as they went along. In framing our Constitution, this was what our founders labored to avoid.
And so, you see, the United States is not a democracy but, by law and custom, a republic. The two terms are not interchangeable.
For anyone to prattle on and on about “America’s democracy” is either ignorant, dishonest, or both. We do not have a democracy, and heaven forbid we ever do.
As a student of political science, I spent much time reading various theories of politics. None of the ones in the textbooks were anywhere near as convincing as what I found in Tarzan novels.
It came to me in a flash. I was reading about Peter the Great’s visit to London, and what a shambles he and his entourage made of the lovely house which had been provided for him. Did these men not know what a stairway was for? Did they not know not to ride their horses on the parquet flooring? They couldn’t have made a bigger mess if they’d been a tribe of apes…
In Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan stories, the apes are always competing with one another, often violently, to see who gets the most food, the most matings, the best place to sleep, and so on. And the ape who gets the most of everything, the biggest and the strongest and the meanest ape, gets to be king. Until a younger, stronger ape comes along and takes it away from him.
Holy cow! Politics!
It really is about who gets to have the most of everything–the most power, the most prestige, the biggest heap of other people’s money… It wasn’t even Burroughs who discovered this. We find it right there in the Bible, in 1 Samuel 8:10-18, in which Samuel warned the people of Israel exactly what would happen to them if they made good their resolve to have a king.
God knows we have a terrible penchant for finding big apes to rule over us. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God warns Israel, through Moses, that if they simply must have a king, they ought to have the kind of king God recommends–a king whose duties will include writing out God’s law, longhand, word for word, every day; no foreigner, but a true Israelite; and a king who will not use his position to collect loads of wealth or a vast herd of wives.
Most of the kings they got were just big apes.
God’s guidance, and faithfulness to His word, makes us real men and women: not apes with car keys.
Some of us were so busy charting the outrage, we missed the bill’s failure in committee. Well, it’s not so easy to keep up with the nooze, these days.
I have a degree in political science, so I’m supposed to understand stuff like this–but I don’t. Not this time. Why in the world do Democrats even think the American people would be okay with the idea of murdering babies as they come out of the womb?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t people American citizens, with the rights of citizens, from the moment they are born in America? Or is there some John Kerryesque nuance that says you can kill ’em as long as, say, one leg is still inside the womb? How would this not be the premeditated murder of an American citizen? That’s the part I don’t understand.
No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the Fifth Amendment says. What–unless he or she is only a new-born baby?
Why did Democrats think the nation would allow them to do this? Are they mad? Or just so blinded by evil that they can’t think straight? Do they really think it’s okay to bushwhack a baby as he’s being born?
I must’ve missed the day they covered that in class.
Time was, we had a constitutional republic divided into three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. That’s still on the books; but in practice we have a whole new form of government, as yet unnamed, under which we live.
It, too, has three branches: the high courts, the news media, and the Democrat Party.
The Party decides what is to be. The media, along with our schools and colleges, tell the public what is to be, and why it must be, and that anyone who opposes it is a biggit and a racist and a hater. And then the high courts ram it through.
The new form of government keeps the outward appearance of the old. There’s still an executive branch, but its personnel function in opposition to the president and their chief role is to subvert the president. There’s still a legislative branch, but its only function is to rubber-stamp tax increases. And of course there’s still the court system, to hand down “laws” that could never enjoy enough public support to be legislated the old-fashioned way.
It need hardly be said that our new form of government is not lawful. The Constitution is the law of the land. On paper. In practice, the new government makes up the law as it goes along. Which really isn’t “law” at all, as civilized nations have always understood it. But hey, if it works in Venezuela, it’ll work here.
The last time I posted Christ Shall Have Dominion as the daily hymn, there was an objection to it. I’d rather not revisit the objection, nor have I anything against the reader who made it. Instead, I would rather counter with a question.
If you would rather Christ not have dominion, who, or what, would you prefer to have it?
I’m a political scientist, with the papers to prove it; and I defy all comers to name a worldly scheme of government that is not ridiculous. Because we ourselves are sinners, never possessed of anything but incomplete knowledge, given to lies and wishful thinking, apt to make horrendous mistakes in judgment, no government we can devise will be any better than we are. And that’s not very good.
But Jesus Christ the Son of God is defined by God the Father as having the right to rule: because He alone is the king who rules in righteousness. The government shall be upon his shoulder, brought about only by the power and the grace of God–not by conniving media, crooked donors, violence, theft, treason, or any of the other means so dear to the human heart. There is nothing we can do to bring Christ down from heaven to set his throne on earth. God does not depend on us.
Only anarchists can convince themselves that human beings can live without someone having dominion over them. And only fools believe that any human government can bring us to an earthly paradise. The mob who cried for Christ to be crucified professed that they had no king but Caesar. Had Caesar submitted himself to God and to God’s law, God would have blessed him as carrying out the duties of a proper ruler–even as He will bless governments today who do the same.
It seems the least they could do while waiting for the King.
Alas, poor Piltdown Man! Turns out he never existed. But I’m afraid Davos Man does.
Who says political scientists aren’t good for anything?
Political scientist Samuel Huntington has coined the term “Davos man,” and it’s a good one. Davos Man is the guy who flies to Davos, Switzerland, in his private jet, takes a limousine to the hotel, and, while sipping overpriced cocktails, gets together with other Davos dudes to plot their takeover of the world.
Davos Man is “completely international,” runs the definition. He doesn’t believe in nations anymore. Sort of a John Kerry type. He doesn’t identify with his own nation. Global government, that’s his bag–run by himself, of course, and some of his friends.
Doesn’t it make you feel like singing?
Davos, Davos man–I wanna be a Davos man!
Davos, Davos man–you gotta be a Davos man!
Abolish every nation, and have a celebration,
We gonna do our groovy global thing!
We love that immigration, it’s great for desolation,
Erase those borders, now we gotta sing! Davos, Davos man… etc.
Aren’t you glad your country, and everybody else’s countries, are in such good hands? Almost makes you wish Obama could have a third term.