Two Mistakes

…are made in a recent The Diplomat piece about the British referendum to leave the EU and our own Founders’ view of popular (direct) democracy.

One is the conflation of a single referendum with direct democracy.

[I]he whole spectacle of a referendum—a “device of dictators and demagogues,” in the words of Margaret Thatcher—underlined a salient point: our soundbite culture, combined with political populism, renders direct democracy in the form of a referendum entirely unsuitable as a tool for deciding complex policy issues.

Or any other culture, apparently.  Notice that, though: a referendum.  Not routine referenda for making all national decisions, which would be popular democracy governance.  No, this was a single referendum to make a single decision; it was no pattern, it set no precedent, and it was entirely appropriate.

This referendum was entirely appropriate because the representative democracy government was itself divided on the matter.

The referendum was especially appropriate for a much larger reason, though.  It’s entirely appropriate, necessary even, for the a representative government to go back to the people as a whole on occasion to get their instruction because that’s how the representatives as a whole (re)calibrate their ties to the people they claim to represent.

The other mistake is claiming that the people are just too stupid to make their own decisions; they need to listen to their Betters and otherwise be quiet.

The voices of reason were further drowned out….

And

T[he Brexit referendum illustrates as much the failure of the experts and elected politicians as it shows that relying on the masses and populism can lead to suspect and potentially damaging decisions. In that sense, we have to guard ourselves against direct democracy being hijacked by demagogues and populists lest we have to endure the “tyranny of the majority” at the expense of wiser policies.

This would be true of a direct democracy; however, see above: a single referendum does not make for a direct democracy means of governance.  The Diplomat‘s piece illustrates, on the contrary, the need for the occasional national referendum.  Experts are in a tizzy because the masses rejected their wisdom and made that damaging decision—at least in the minds of those Betters.  What a representative democracy must especially guard against, though, is being hijacked by demagogues and elitists lest we have to endure the tyranny of the Betters at the expense of the people.

Tony Blair Misunderstands

Great Britain’s Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair has sensed danger from the Brits’ vote to leave the European Union.

Blair said in a Friday column in The Daily Telegraph that the future of the United Kingdom is at stake as the country faces negotiations on the terms of leaving the European Union.

Of course there’s danger—there always is when a change as large as this is embarked on.  But Great Britain didn’t get to be as great as it was and still is by being timid.  This move is a great opportunity for the nation, much more so than it is a risk, however real that risk is.

Blair also worried:

Britain is dangerously divided, with “profound dismay” felt by many of the 48 percent who wanted to remain in the EU.

He’s missing the other question, though: would Great Britain be any less divided had they voted to Remain?  Not a bit.

Look forward, not backward.

Democrats’ Censorship

The Democratic Party’s draft platform calls for

the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change[.]

This is on top of all the Democratic Party State Attorneys General persecuting companies under pseudo-RICO charges for daring speak.  Because we can’t have the average American individual [who] is morally and intellectually inadequate presuming to dispute with the Democrats’ received wisdom.  Nossir.

And

Democratic members of the Federal Election Commission, in a decision to be made public on Thursday, voted last month to punish Fox News over criteria changes for the network’s first Republican presidential primary debate….

Fox News‘ crime, so heinous in the eyes of Democrats? They altered the format of that first debate to expand free speech by increasing the number of Presidential candidate debaters.  We can’t have, after all, those morally and intellectually inadequate Americans having access to too wide a range of view.  Mm, mm.  Fortunately, the honest members of the FEC succeeded in blocking this travesty.

This is what a Hillary Clinton administration will inflict on us.

Dangers of a Progressive Senate

Last Monday the Senate voted down four gun control measures, the least offensive of which was Senator John Cornyn’s (R, TX) proposal to let DoJ delay a gun purchase by someone DoJ suspected but that also would require Justice to show probable cause in court within 72 hours in order to permanently block the purchase.

The Democrats’ response was as predictable as it was disingenuous.  Here’s Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY), for instance.

It’s hard to believe, but still true, that our Republican colleagues voted to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns.  We will keep pushing until they see the light.

It’s hard to believe, but astoundingly still true, that Democrats continue to insist on depriving Americans of our rights whenever those rights become inconvenient to Democrat agenda goals.  Suspected terrorists.  Never mind conviction.  Never mind even probable cause, which isn’t anything more than a showing to a judge that a case that might be brought has a legitimate chance of success in court, in front of a jury.  Due process?  Democrats don’t need no stinking due process.

72 hours is too short?  The DoJ already has an extensive file on the suspected individual; that’s why they suspect him.  The long pole in this tent is the drive over to the local courthouse.

We must keep resisting because Democrats disparage American rights and refuse to see the light.

Elections have consequences.