Mob Rule does not work

America's founders set up the entire political system brilliantly.  They wanted to avoid a concentration of power like that which was seen in monarchies.  But that was not about which all they were concerned.  They were clearly worried about majority tyranny (mob rule).  If the majority of the country felt there was a need to impose a death penalty for something as trivial as a different opinion on gender identification, that does not make the implementation of legislation to execute those who believe that there are only two genders.  The American government was set up to prevent the majority from oppressing minorities as much as it was set up to prevent the government from oppressing the people.  Currently it seems to be largely failing on both counts.

As an aside, the notion that there are only two genders is still a majority opinion, despite what the media would have you believe.

Mob rule is dangerous, typically violent and unhealthy for society.  And yet with a section of Seattle free from police, the state and local governments have done nothing to restore law and order.  It's appalling.

With the president looking to step in, the local whack-job of a mayor seems more concerned about the legality of that than of the lawlessness within her city.

I am not usually prone to using ad hominem attacks, but that is just moronic. She's a failure as a mayor and has no sense of the legality of the situation.

Quote of the Week

Rich Lowry writes in the New York Post, on the Left's blaming the Constitution for SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh:

It’s certainly true that the Senate is not fully democratic and gives an outsized role to small states, since this was the price they exacted for signing on to the Constitution. This arrangement isn’t a conspiracy against the left.

The Constitution is doing what it was designed to do, prevent majority tyranny. The structure of the senate is one of the checks built into the Constitution to prevent.  It's not minority tyranny, it's minority protection, plain and simple. Not only was it a compromise designed to sew the country together, it was brilliant and needed idea to prevent mob rule.

Lowry continues:

The design of the Senate recognizes the status of the states as real governing entities with their own prerogatives under the Constitution. Like the equally hated Electoral College, the Senate ensures that flyover country isn’t ignored. It reflects the dizzying geographic diversity of a continental nation and promotes national cohesion by giving every corner of it a voice.

The Senate is also meant to be a check on the unbridled public will. Its members are elected in staggered six-year terms and, originally, they were selected by state legislatures, not in a direct vote.

The House is the more democratic body. California has 53 representatives; Wyoming has one. Yet, Democrats don’t control the House, either.

These are things leftists are willing to overlook in their greed for power. Lowry sets them straight on why they are wrong again.

Quote of the week

FYI - American government was designed to prevent mob rule.

Wall Street Journal writer Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. nails it with this quote;

Well, that was a bit embarrassing. Antifascist liberals mounted thousand-strong counter-rallies all weekend against a Nazi threat that proved nonexistent or thin on the ground. Leftists imagined themselves to be modern-day versions of the Czech resistance or the Warsaw uprising, but it turns out they were the majoritarian mob shouting down a handful of losers who’ve been an execrable but small part of the American pageant for as long as most of us can remember.

We don’t know what speakers at Saturday’s “free speech” rally in Boston might have said. It was organized, according to the local papers, by libertarians protesting campus speech codes, though they opened their platform to anybody, left and right. The meeting ended early; the speakers were all drowned out. Nazis and white supremacists, if any were present, were shown to be vastly outnumbered by Americans who reject such doctrines.

To state another obvious point, our civil liberties are meaningless if they don’t protect unpopular views. It’s not the mob but the mob’s targets that need protection.

...More relevant is the principle that large mobs are more dangerous than small mobs, and likely to harbor more psychopaths. Apparently running out of Nazis to resist, Boston protesters threw rocks and urine-filled bottles at police.

Self-reflection is in order on the left.  So too on the right, where there appears to be a disconnect between voters and Republicans they have elected.  But that's another story.

The American system of government was designed to prevent oppression - from government and mob rule (or majority tyranny).  The leftist progressives made their names protecting the downtrodden. Now that they are the establishment, and they believe they are the real majority, they like the idea of majority tyranny.  From the notion of removing the electoral college to the daily browbeating of the president and his supporters by the mainstream media  they are demanding the acquiescence of the American people. If you support that, you are supporting tyranny, plain and simple. 

The Rationale for America is Quickly Disappearing

I recall telling a fellow Canadian something a couple of years ago when they had wondered aloud why Americans were so adamant about their guns and why they were so up in arms over government health care.  I explained to him that both issues stem from the same national sensibility and that America, as a nation was born of a distrust of government.  The English crown was the problem back then, but the DNA today remains the same - at least for many Americans - government cannot be trusted.

 

A light bulb went off for the Canadian in question.  It did not change his opinion on health care I am sure, but it did clarify his understanding of why people would have certain opinions on certain issues. In fact, he was the type whom I'm sure could and would apply that reasoning to views on other political topics.

Of course the explanation was a gross over-simplification of the conservative viewpoint on a number of issues.  But the simplification had its benefits in that it crystalized quite quickly an understanding that had not existed before. Also, I got lucky.  The conversation could have taken an entirely different, and more argumentative course if I had added one word to my explanation: healthy.  If I had said America was born of a healthy distrust of government, I'm sure I would have made no progress in that discussion.

The reason for the back story is that it relates to another issue. The original rationale for America is quickly disappearing.  The idea that the United States was the child of a core human wish for freedom (not democracy, but rather liberty) has been subverted in two fundamental ways.