Lying Like a Cheap Rug
Let's not let the left screw up a good thing.
The American Democrat left lies.
To you, to their supporters, to voters, to everyone.
They lie about everything.
The most pernicious lies are about democracy and freedom.
Advocates of total democracy often ignore its historical flaws, equating it with unchecked freedom. Yet, pure democracy, as the Founding Fathers warned, risks devolving into mob rule, where a majority or even a plurality can strip away rights, property, or life itself. The Founders, while embracing democratic ideals, crafted a constitutional republic to avoid these perils, balancing liberty with minimal restrictions to ensure a stable, just civil society. Their arguments, grounded in history and philosophy, remain a bulwark against modern calls for unrestrained governance.
The Founders rejected pure democracy for its instability and potential for oppression. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, cautioned that direct mass rule invited mob rule, with unchecked majorities swayed by passion or demagogues, as seen in Athens’ execution of Socrates. He and Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 51 and No. 68) highlighted the tyranny of the majority, where dominant factions could crush minority rights, and doubted the masses’ competence for complex governance, a view John Adams shared in Thoughts on Government (1776). Historical failures, like Athens and Rome, collapsing into chaos or tyranny, reinforced their skepticism.
As property-owning elites, they also feared democracy’s potential to redistribute private wealth, embedding safeguards like the Electoral College and indirect Senate elections. Drawing on Aristotle and Montesquieu, they designed a republic with checks—Senate, judiciary, and a strong executive—to prioritize deliberation and long-term stability over fickle public opinion.
Modern claims, often from progressive circles, that “freedom” means unrestricted action contradict the Founders’ vision of ordered liberty. Thomas Jefferson, echoing John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689) in the Declaration of Independence (1776), argued government should secure life, liberty, and property with minimal laws to prevent harm. In Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), he warned excessive restrictions could choke freedom. Madison (Federalist No. 51) and Hamilton (Federalist No. 78) embedded this in the Constitution’s enumerated powers and Bill of Rights, using checks and an independent judiciary to curb overreach. Adams, citing Montesquieu in Thoughts on Government, called for “a government of laws, not of men,” a principle reflected in the decentralized federal system crafted at the Constitutional Convention (1787). The Founders acknowledged human flaws required some laws (Federalist No. 51), but these must be few, transparent, and justified. Albert Camus, writing in “The Myth of Sisyphus” noted: “The absurd does not liberate; it binds. It does not authorize all actions. "Everything is permitted" does not mean that nothing is forbidden.” In this Camus echoes the Founders’ caution: absolute freedom, forcing acceptance of chaos, undermines true liberty. Through these arguments, the Founders crafted a system balancing popular input with safeguards against pure democracy’s perils, ensuring stability, liberty, and deliberation in governance.
The Founders’ created a system, one that balances popular input with safeguards, ensures stability and deliberation, a legacy we must preserve against misguided calls for unchecked democracy or unrestricted freedom.
Let us not allow Democrat leftists screw up a good thing.
After the declaration of independence, Pennsylvania produced a state government that was an experiment in as close to pure democracy as anything we’ve ever seen. The ex-colony created something like an absolute parliamentary system with no single executive but rather something like an executive committee with daily rotation of the primary executive chair . . . In other words, “the buck (or Continental Congress dollar equivalent) stopped . . . “ nowhere with no one to ever take responsibility for anything. This democratic assembly pushed Rousseau’s “general will” idea to its extreme disenfranchising any citizen who would not swear an oath to defend the State of Pennsylvania by force of arms if necessary - in a State founded by non-oath-swearing Quakers and inhabited by a large number of pacifist Amish. In other words Pennsylvania turned into the very sort of mobocracy that Aristotle warned against in his Politics. The future framers took note of that failed experiment and no doubt had it in mind when they penned Federalist No. 10 warning against the potential tyranny of the majority inherent in democracy. Modern Democrats don’t read No. 10, or any other of the Federalist Papers today, probably because, after having taken “whole word” reading lessons that shunned the use of phonetics, they can’t read at all.
Too bad Senators are directly elected.