Friday, May 28, 2010

Fjordman: On the Flaws of Democracy

Fjordman’s latest essay has been posted at Democracy Reform. Some excerpts are below:

Far too many are addicted to Socialism and government handouts, both in Greece, the cradle of democracy in the ancient world, and in Britain, the cradle of parliamentary democracy in the modern world. Maybe the best thing Britain can hope for now, if it is going to survive as a nation for native Brits, is an Oliver Cromwell type of person. Democracy of universal suffrage has so far proved itself inadequate at containing the ongoing Third World invasion of the West.

The short-term attention span brought about by brief election cycles hasn’t been good at dealing with long-term threats, economic or otherwise, especially when combined with the dumbing down caused by television and the fact that citizenship and voting rights have been handed out like candy to members of hostile tribes. The USA was specifically designed to be a Constitutional Republic, not a mass democracy.

This arrangement worked well for a long time, yet Americans in 2008 elected an anti-Western Marxist as President. It is a fair bet that their Founding Fathers would have been horrified had they witnessed this. An African Socialist demagogue like Barack Hussein Obama embodies everything they tried to prevent. Perhaps universal suffrage makes a slide to Socialism inevitable, as too many people will vote themselves into possession of other people’s money. They will gradually grow accustomed to this arrangement and will consider it their “right.

It would be tempting to conclude that we should simply hand power over to the self-professed elites. The problem is that the Western ruling oligarchs are committed Globalists and/or brainwashed Marxists who often make even poorer choices than the masses do. For example, in some cases where the masses made sound decisions, such as the Swiss ban on Muslim minarets or the Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution, the elites have tried to overrule this.
- - - - - - - - -
In many cases, the public can be rightfully criticized for making poor choices, but they have also sometimes been betrayed by people they supported who turned out to be very different from what they pretended to be before being elected. Nicolas Sarkozy as French President has disappointed millions of ethnic Frenchmen who voted for him, thinking that he would reverse their country’s slide into poverty and anarchy. As it turns out, he has done virtually nothing to address these issues, but has rather intensified the cultural war waged against the natives.

Mr. Sarkozy apparently cares for nothing other than achieving and maintaining power and the personal privileges associated with this, and will serve any lie necessary in order to do so. If he is the best candidate who can be elected in France then we must conclude that the best isn’t good enough and that France can no longer be saved merely by voting. Tony Blair in Britain was widely popular in the late 1990s during his early years as Prime Minister, yet he arguably did more to hurt his country than any other person in British history. Perhaps mass democracy facilitates the rise of accomplished liars such as Blair, Sarkozy or George W. Bush.

Read the rest at Democracy Reform.


Nick said...

After Adolf Hitler's party got 33% of the vote in the November 1932 elections, Hindenburg was coerced into appointing Hitler as Chancellor. Johannes Zahn, a German banker, said in Laurence Rees' documentary/book "The Nazis: A Warning from History" that those in business preferred the Nazis to the Communists, adding, "In the beginning, you really have to say this today, you couldn't tell whether National Socialism was something good with a few bad side effects, or something evil with a few good side effects, you couldn't tell." (Rees, "The Nazis", BBC Books, p. 42.)

Santiagokorrespondenten said...

One interesting form of democracy is connecting the vote to the tax paid, the tax being voluntary. That way, rich people will run the country, but they have to make large contribution to the state apparatus. And common people won´t pay if they don´t like it. People who scream after more and more welfare and never contribute will not have any influence. And if the rich try to get their tax money back by making large payments from the state to their private enterprises? That´s a risk, but with today´s western democracies, it happens a lot as we all know. And we can´t protest against it by not paying for it.

Anonymous said...

"connecting the vote to the tax paid, the tax being voluntary"

Poll tax. In the USA, this is denounced as evil evil Jim Crow racism that was keeping the black man down until enlightened good liberal people sang songs and marched and held signs and made the bad people get rid of it. One more thing that is not politically feasible until some fundamental things change drastically.

Sean O'Brian said...

I'm sympathetic to the arguments against universal suffrage but it is not always the case that it is women who drag the State to the left. In France one of the reasons women were traditionally denied the vote was because they were considered too conservative. It was thought if they were allowed to vote they would shift power back to the Catholic Church and so upset the revolutionary schemes of the men.

Anonymous said...

Sean, in my country women voted the socialists out in 1996. And women in general vote in the same way as men with only +/- 0.5% differences.

Anyway, I'd make this system - the people who vote have to meet this criteria:
1)be in between 25-65 years old
2)be married and have children
3)have no criminal record
4)be net tax payers
5)be homeowners or business owners
optional)have served in national service - men only.

Universal suffrage is utter idiotic, if you ask me. Fjordman, you don't have to go from one extreme to the other. Absolute monarchy/oligarchy can be as bad as universal suffrage democracy. Usually it's not in the sense of constitutional monarchy, but you must have a proper system in place, not just give powers to the 'elite'.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

"It would be tempting to conclude that we should simply hand power over to the self-professed elites."

Please clarify this is exactly what has happened in the uk over the last thirty years plus.

These elites are well illustrated in the present conservative-liberal slimeball government, monetary wealth is not the mark of nobility. The old ideoligies of conservative and socialist are not descriptive of mainstream UK politicians these terms are obsolete they are neoliberals.

There is more nobility to be found on a social housing scheme than there is in the House of Lords.

spackle said...

You could eliminate a huge swath of voters by simply requiring a test be passed every election cycle. Maybe have exceptions for local elections.Questions on current pertinent events and some questions about the candidates and their positions and some other stuff as well. With some variation to each test? Most will be too lazy to take the test. Good. Dont need them. And many others will be so uninformed from watching too much reality TV they will fail. You have now cut out a giant section of dead wood electorate.

Elan-tima said...

I commend Fjyordman for being brave enough to write about the most delicate political subject in the Western world--the clearly flawed instrument of chooseing a government. Its one of the honestly worthy self criticisms we have to address, and offer at least some philosophic adjustments if not alternative outlets. Civility in Europe's long existence is based on the multitude makeing choices wheather that was in the street, battlefield or in the ballot box. Thus we know Fjordman isn't suggesting absolutist rule but a way that individuals can act uni-culturally to install a politico-industrial leadership.
If I could request anything of Fjordman it would be to offer an essay on the myth of choice in the multiparty state. There is the eternal criticism of "one party states" due to the percieved lack of choice. But we see throughout Europe and North America multi party states offering the choice of different shades of political grey. Could it be that with a single ideological foundation (Humanism) multi party democracies lead down the same path to a self destructive destination? Am I wrong to think that the only time democracy offers a positive enviornment is when there are popular rival ideologyies? Since Fjordman is a respected essayist at many net sites perhaps he can expand his essays and address the most pressing questions facing democracy in our time.

christian soldier said...

let's get our Constitutional Republic back--
as to taxation---
property taxes are only voted upon-for/against- by property owners-

tax payer welfare $$$$ are only voted upon by tax payers---
etc.-etc. etc-
I like my idea!!