Excellent analysis! One of our biggest problems is that people think "democracy," all by itself, is a sufficient check on power. I frankly don't understand how anyone can still believe that, but of course they probably won't be taught otherwise in school.

The disturbing flip side of thinking democracy is a magic talisman against tyranny is the belief that democracy sanctifies power - the essence of majoritarianism. "They can't be dictators if we can vote them out of office!" is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world.
The restraints placed on power are MORE important than the process of choosing who gets to wield it. You would be more free under a tightly restrained hereditary monarch than in a "democracy" with totalitarian centralized power.
The human race learned, fairly recently, that elected government is the approach most likely to maximize liberty and human rights, but where on Earth did we get the notion that it's perfect and sufficient all by itself? The world is full of tyrannies that hold elections.
"Democracy" would be the worst of all worlds - tyranny by mob rule, with the oppressors claiming their every fancy was fully and completely sanctified because they won a vote, and why should we let a stubborn minority thwart The Will of the People?
One of the things "democracy" fetishists don't understand - or don't want YOU to understand - is that you don't amass majoritarian power by convincing a majority of the people to agree with you. It's FAR easier to gain power by suppressing those who disagree.
The childlike view of "democracy" is some great lively national conversation where we all decide what we're going to do together. The Democrat Party actually used that as an insipid slogan during the Obama years - "government is just a name for the things we do together."
The reality is aggressive, power-hungry groups intimidating and oppressing the opposition to get what they want. They loudly insist those who disagree with them have no moral standing to participate in "democracy." The number of ideas that can be voted on grows ever smaller.
Getting 51% of the people in a huge nation to agree with you is a sucker's game. Preventing 51% from banding together to stop you is MUCH easier. It's funny how in theory everything is on the table in an unrestrained majoritarian democracy, but in practice nothing really is.
You know who really has the whip hand under "democracy?" Power brokers who can drop packages of bloc votes on the table. Give me what I want, and I'll deliver X votes. Those blocs must be kept disciplined and obedient by teaching them to feel entitled and hate everyone else.
And of course, the more centralized power becomes, the less important the concerns of individual people will be. One vote among tens or hundreds of millions gives you no "control" over "democracy," especially not compared to power brokers with bloc votes and big city machines.
What you need to be free, really free, is a tightly restrained central government, constitutional rights it cannot transgress against no matter how morally superior politicians might feel or how badly special interests desire it, power devolved to local representatives.
It's still not a perfect setup - there will always be tension between freedom and the desire for more government intervention - but the best thing about constitutionally limited, decentralized government is that you really can organize and make a difference in local government...
... and if that doesn't work, you can fairly easily move to a city or state that respects the freedoms you value and supports ideas you believe in. Americans were given the best deal anyone ever got by our founders, and we let it slip away. We were foolish to let it go.
"Democracy" and majoritarianism are appealing to people who want to be ruled, hunger to rule over others, or have been convinced that freedom is scary. Easier to accept totalitarianism when you can tell yourself it was sanctified by "democracy."
The worst illusion is the foolish belief that we can always vote the totalitarianism away if we don't like it. Sorry, folks, but the core belief of "progressivism" is that nobody ever gets to vote again once government power is imposed, no matter how badly it fails.
Look at how the Democrats have used Obamacare to enslave voters. It was sold with lies, it failed so spectacularly that even the Dems agreed it's a disaster during their debates... but there's no going back, ever. You're not even allowed to talk about returning to freedom.
All too often, "democracy" boils down to one man, one vote, one time... and the voters don't really know what they're voting for. True freedom lies not in the opportunity to say "yes," but in the power to say "no." /end

More from John Hayward

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.

More from Society

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.