Democrats vow to protect democracy by dismantling it
Is the Democrats’ Focus on “Saving Democracy” Undermining Constitutional Governance?
Granted, I’m not a professional political consultant, but I’m starting to get the sense that the Democrats’ 2024 focus on “saving democracy” suffers somewhat from their constant efforts to demolish every basic norm of constitutional governance.
Then again, maybe we just need to define our terms, since “democracy” has been stripped of any useful meaning. The word certainly doesn’t signify adherence to the Constitution — a document barely, if ever, mentioned by the contemporary left for obvious reasons.
Indeed, for the past eight or so years, many legal and traditional institutions of American governance — the Electoral College, the filibuster, two senators in every state, states, open discourse, the Supreme Court, and so on — have been framed as nemeses of “democracy” if they happen to temporarily benefit Republicans.
Virtually every political setback, in fact, has been transformed into an existential threat to the foundations of “democracy.” Anyone with conventional conservative views, especially social ones, has been reimagined as MAGA extremists or “semi-fascists” or “Christofascists.”
Even when originalist justices, the most scrupulous devotees of American “democracy” in the country, strengthen majoritarianism, as they did handing the abortion issue back to voters where it belonged, Democrats have a collective fainting spell over the future of “democracy.”
Democrats are positive that asking someone to prove an ID before voting portends the rise of the Fourth Reich, but they have no problem pressuring private companies to censor political speech, ignoring the Supreme Court, unilaterally breaking millions of private contracts to buy votes, using executive power to circumvent the will of voters, and throwing the leading opposition candidate off ballots.
If you’re convinced that George W. Bush stole an election or that Donald Trump was “selected” by a foreign dictator, your griping about “denialism” holds no weight.
Do you know what’s definitely authoritarian, though? Plotting to undermine civilian control of the military. It’s one of the big ones.
NBC News reports this week that “a network of public interest groups and lawmakers, nervous about former President Trump’s potential return to power, is quietly devising plans to foil any effort on his part to pressure the U.S. military to carry out his political agenda.”
Dear lord, voters elect the commander-in-chief because of a political agenda. It is literally the military’s job to implement the democratic will of the people. It’s right there in the Constitution. It’s the point.
Invading Iraq was a political decision, not one made by a Star Chamber, but by the president and senators like Joe Biden. Leaving Afghanistan was a political decision, made by a president who promised the public he would do so if elected. The decision to take the Houthis off the global terror list was a political decision. As was the decision to grant Iran access to billions and to send Palestinian terror groups hundreds of millions of dollars.
Now, if voters are unhappy with these decisions, they are free to support someone else the next time around. But if a bunch of unelected right-wing “public interest groups” and lawmakers, nervous about Biden’s failed — but completely legal — foreign policy decisions, formed a cabal within the government to “foil” him, it would not be strengthening “democracy.”
Then again, you remember when Gen. Mark Milley made two phone calls to our top geopolitical foes in China and promised to give them a heads-up should the United States attack? That was another clear-cut subversion of civilian authority over the military. Nothing about those calls comports with “democracy.” The opposite. Yet Milley is regarded as a hero of the resistance.
And you probably remember “Anonymous,” as well. The “senior Trump administration official” who published that overwrought op-ed in The New York Times contending that senior staffers secretly schemed to undercut Trump to protect the American people. “I work for the president,” wrote Miles Taylor, “but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”
Political appointees who join a shadow government to “thwart” the president’s decisions — not because he’s been engaged in any unconstitutional or illegal acts, but because they disagreed with him — are definitely not the heroes of “democracy” they imagine themselves. (Taylor is on TV these days warning that Trump might “turn off” the internet if he’s elected for a second term. Joke’s on him, though, since Trump already did so when he overturned net neutrality.)
David Axelrod, who worked for a president who acted as if he were a sovereign, contends that if Republican primary voters select Trump as the nominee, it “would be a stunning rebuke of the rules, norms, laws and institutions upon which our democracy is founded and would have profound implications for the future.”
Now, a lot of that sounds like projection to me. Sometimes, you get the sense that just maybe all this “democracy” talk is a cynical strategy to hold onto power.
But let’s say it’s true. Every illiberal precedent Democrats set in their own alleged efforts to save our “democracy” from Trump will also have profound implications for the future. Trump will leave us one day. Democrats’ constant attacks on governing norms won’t.
What are some criticisms of the Democrats’ approach to “saving democracy” as discussed in the op-ed?
Helming op-ed in The New York Times about the internal resistance within the White House to counter President Trump’s agenda. This person, hiding behind anonymity, claimed to be part of the “resistance” working to save democracy from Trump’s destructive actions.
Now, let’s be clear: no one is denying that there are legitimate concerns to address when it comes to constitutional governance and the preservation of democracy. However, it is important to critically examine the actions and rhetoric of the Democrats in their so-called mission to “save democracy.”
One of the main issues with the Democrats’ approach is their selective interpretation of democracy. They conveniently label anything that doesn’t align with their ideology as a threat to democracy, while ignoring their own transgressions against constitutional norms.
For instance, the Democrats have consistently targeted key institutions of American governance that they perceive as impediments to their agenda. The Electoral College, the filibuster, and the Supreme Court have all been demonized as enemies of democracy simply because they may temporarily favor Republicans. This narrow, self-serving definition of democracy undermines the very essence of constitutional governance, which relies on a system of checks and balances.
Furthermore, the Democrats have shown a willingness to trample on the rights of individuals and disregard the rule of law in the name of “saving democracy.” They advocate for unbridled censorship by pressuring private companies to censor political speech, ignore Supreme Court decisions, and break private contracts to gain political support. These actions only serve to undermine the foundations of a democratic society.
Another disturbing trend among Democrats is their attempts to delegitimize their political opponents by mischaracterizing them as extremists or fascists. Instead of engaging in substantive policy debates, they resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. This not only stifles open discourse and free exchange of ideas, but it also undermines the democratic principle of respecting differing viewpoints.
But perhaps the most alarming example of the Democrats’ undermining of constitutional governance is their willingness to undermine civilian control of the military. The recent reports of efforts by certain groups and lawmakers to foil former President Trump’s potential return to power by manipulating the military is deeply concerning. The military’s role is to implement the democratic will of the people, not to be used as a political tool to further partisan agendas.
It is important to underscore that democracy is not a monolithic concept that can be molded and shaped to fit partisan interests. It is a system that relies on the rule of law, respect for constitutional norms, and the protection of individual rights. The Democrats’ focus on “saving democracy” is only meaningful if it encompasses these fundamental principles, rather than serving as a smokescreen for their own power-hungry agenda.
In conclusion, while the idea of “saving democracy” is noble and necessary, it is crucial to scrutinize the actions and rhetoric of those claiming to champion this cause. The Democrats’ constant efforts to demolish constitutional norms, selectively interpret democracy, and undermine their political opponents raise serious questions about the true nature of their commitment to constitutional governance and the preservation of democracy. As citizens, it is our duty to hold all political parties accountable for their actions and demand a genuine commitment to the principles that underpin our democratic system.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...