A quality bit of analysis, as usual. This topic is embedded in a larger issue, one which is, on the right, often phrased as "This is a republic, not a democracy". The usual interpretation of this concept is that, in a republic, 'majority rule' [ defining 'majority' as fifty-percent (of those who bother to vote) -plus-one ] does not apply in all circumstances. Here is a question for the Twilight Patriot to address himself to.
I think we must be careful here. Until recently, historically speaking, the upper strata of the US were reasonably competent in administering the nation. If Adlai Stevenson had won the Presidential election in 1952, things would, arguably, not been radically different after his term in office.
But now, Democratic victories in elections mean drag queens in schools, the Marine Corps being ordered to embrace homosexuality, confused children being sexually mutilated against the wishes of their parents, the American flag removed lest it give offense to American citizens who hate America, millions of impoverished Third Worlders crossing the border.
Since the majority of Americans, including Democrats, don't like these developments, it's tempting to want to rethink restraints on the majority's right to implement its belief in law. But the views of the Founders on the dangers of unrestrained democracy are still valid.
We have to be careful that, in defending the Republic, we don't destroy the Republic. Of course, this is just a truism. We have to work out, concretely, how to counter the Left's assault on our democratic Republic -- and this is not straightforward. It will be interesting to hear the Twilight Patriot's views on this.
As an admirer of the American Revolution (and not of the French Revolution!) I have of course given plenty of thoughts on the need for mixed constitutions with countermajoritarian elements. And yet, as usual I am going to quibble with some of your points.
First off, the recent changes you complain about - such as sex changes for minors, pride flags in the military, and de facto open borders - aren't really due to "democrats" winning too many elections. They happen in red states as well as blue states (i.e. the famous James/Luna Younger case was in Texas) and they were going on full steam ahead during the Trump Administration no less than under Obama and Biden. So this is not a matter of the Dems winning an election or two and then using their new majority to implement their agenda - it's a matter of the ruling class figuring out how to implement it agenda whether or not it wins, which is something it's been doing pretty effectively since the 1960s.
Second, re the need to tolerate limits on majority power because our country isn't a pure democracy. As I see it, the way this is supposed to work is that, under certain circumstances rooted in law and tradition, some institutions will have a veto power over majority rule. Good examples of this are the requirement that jury verdicts usually be unanimous, or old-fashioned bicameralism - i.e. it's not enough for a bill to pass the House where the people are represented, it also has to pass the Senate where the states are represented.
But this still basically a matter of a mostly-majority-rule system where the minority sometimes gets a veto. It's one thing for a single juror to hang the jury and force a new trial; it's another thing for the lone dissenter to decide, all on his own, that some other guy is responsible for the murder and sentence him to hang instead!
What we have now in America is much closer to the second system. You can't get immigration reform through Congress because of bicameralism and the filibuster and all that... but the DHS secretary can just decide to let ten million people into the country without any legal basis, and then escape impeachment because it's just a "policy dispute." Likewise when it comes to homosexuality and (until recently) abortion you have judges forcing radical reforms onto the country that could not have even gotten through legislatures with a bare majority in one chamber, let alone getting through both chambers like big changes in the law ought to be able to do.
So at the end of the day, you end up with a Kafkaesque situation where the government's justifies its power with chains of reasoning like:
(1) Putting too much power in the hands of too few people is bad
(2) Therefore we must have a system a system of checks and balances
(3) One of these checks and balances is an absolutely independent judiciary
(4) If judges can be punished for misconduct in any way, then they're not really independent
(5) Therefore, if we're really committed to liberty and the rule of law, then we'll allow judges, if they so choose, to order the hands of accused shoplifters cut off without any sort of trial.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that this is the sort of logic you'd expect to find believed by a character in an Orwell novel. Really it is more like Idiocracy.
Of course the real-life situation is more complicated than that. I think Mr. Freuechtenicht was right when he said there wasn't any real risk that a court would consider the hand-amputation surgery; his case revolved around forced sterilization instead since by the 1970s a lot of people had already decided that having children was more often a burden rather than a normal part of a life well-lived. But at the end of the day, if your concept of "liberal democracy" means that the educated elite (lawyers, judges, doctors, etc.) should be able to force this point of view on everyone else without winning elections and then enacting reforms in the legislature... well then you are the same sort of person who would have parroted that old motto: "War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
A quality bit of analysis, as usual. This topic is embedded in a larger issue, one which is, on the right, often phrased as "This is a republic, not a democracy". The usual interpretation of this concept is that, in a republic, 'majority rule' [ defining 'majority' as fifty-percent (of those who bother to vote) -plus-one ] does not apply in all circumstances. Here is a question for the Twilight Patriot to address himself to.
I think we must be careful here. Until recently, historically speaking, the upper strata of the US were reasonably competent in administering the nation. If Adlai Stevenson had won the Presidential election in 1952, things would, arguably, not been radically different after his term in office.
But now, Democratic victories in elections mean drag queens in schools, the Marine Corps being ordered to embrace homosexuality, confused children being sexually mutilated against the wishes of their parents, the American flag removed lest it give offense to American citizens who hate America, millions of impoverished Third Worlders crossing the border.
Since the majority of Americans, including Democrats, don't like these developments, it's tempting to want to rethink restraints on the majority's right to implement its belief in law. But the views of the Founders on the dangers of unrestrained democracy are still valid.
We have to be careful that, in defending the Republic, we don't destroy the Republic. Of course, this is just a truism. We have to work out, concretely, how to counter the Left's assault on our democratic Republic -- and this is not straightforward. It will be interesting to hear the Twilight Patriot's views on this.
Doug,
As an admirer of the American Revolution (and not of the French Revolution!) I have of course given plenty of thoughts on the need for mixed constitutions with countermajoritarian elements. And yet, as usual I am going to quibble with some of your points.
First off, the recent changes you complain about - such as sex changes for minors, pride flags in the military, and de facto open borders - aren't really due to "democrats" winning too many elections. They happen in red states as well as blue states (i.e. the famous James/Luna Younger case was in Texas) and they were going on full steam ahead during the Trump Administration no less than under Obama and Biden. So this is not a matter of the Dems winning an election or two and then using their new majority to implement their agenda - it's a matter of the ruling class figuring out how to implement it agenda whether or not it wins, which is something it's been doing pretty effectively since the 1960s.
Second, re the need to tolerate limits on majority power because our country isn't a pure democracy. As I see it, the way this is supposed to work is that, under certain circumstances rooted in law and tradition, some institutions will have a veto power over majority rule. Good examples of this are the requirement that jury verdicts usually be unanimous, or old-fashioned bicameralism - i.e. it's not enough for a bill to pass the House where the people are represented, it also has to pass the Senate where the states are represented.
But this still basically a matter of a mostly-majority-rule system where the minority sometimes gets a veto. It's one thing for a single juror to hang the jury and force a new trial; it's another thing for the lone dissenter to decide, all on his own, that some other guy is responsible for the murder and sentence him to hang instead!
What we have now in America is much closer to the second system. You can't get immigration reform through Congress because of bicameralism and the filibuster and all that... but the DHS secretary can just decide to let ten million people into the country without any legal basis, and then escape impeachment because it's just a "policy dispute." Likewise when it comes to homosexuality and (until recently) abortion you have judges forcing radical reforms onto the country that could not have even gotten through legislatures with a bare majority in one chamber, let alone getting through both chambers like big changes in the law ought to be able to do.
So at the end of the day, you end up with a Kafkaesque situation where the government's justifies its power with chains of reasoning like:
(1) Putting too much power in the hands of too few people is bad
(2) Therefore we must have a system a system of checks and balances
(3) One of these checks and balances is an absolutely independent judiciary
(4) If judges can be punished for misconduct in any way, then they're not really independent
(5) Therefore, if we're really committed to liberty and the rule of law, then we'll allow judges, if they so choose, to order the hands of accused shoplifters cut off without any sort of trial.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that this is the sort of logic you'd expect to find believed by a character in an Orwell novel. Really it is more like Idiocracy.
Of course the real-life situation is more complicated than that. I think Mr. Freuechtenicht was right when he said there wasn't any real risk that a court would consider the hand-amputation surgery; his case revolved around forced sterilization instead since by the 1970s a lot of people had already decided that having children was more often a burden rather than a normal part of a life well-lived. But at the end of the day, if your concept of "liberal democracy" means that the educated elite (lawyers, judges, doctors, etc.) should be able to force this point of view on everyone else without winning elections and then enacting reforms in the legislature... well then you are the same sort of person who would have parroted that old motto: "War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"