Monday, January 10, 2022

Defaming Democracy


Friends, I think we can all agree that American democracy peaked with Nixon-Agnew's 49-state landslide victory over McGovern-Shriver in 1972.  Since  We've been limping along.  Now, though, the denouement of American democracy is gathering pace.

Witness the flurry of alarmist articles from leftists below.  In shrill, panicked tones, they declare that our constitutional system is on its last legs because of Republicans' "deceitful and violent effort to end American democracy".  Only David Brooks injects a note of rationality: he points out that a lot of Democratic talking points are focused on matters like voter ID, which survey after survey show has little effect on voter turnout or the outcomes of elections. Brooks, though, finds the efforts of Republican legislatures to take control of election administration and the certification of election results deeply troubling.  He needn't.  State legislatures and Governors have always had important powers over our elections.  Almost never do they exercise those powers to try to influence the outcomes of the electoral process.  And, lest we forget, none of them did so, or tried to do so, in 2020.  That's because what undergirds the integrity of our elections is not the laws and procedures that govern them, but their widely heralded legitimacy, and the force of public opinion, which, up until now, has seldom doubted that the person who gets more votes is the rightful winner of any election.  What's different about America in the 21st century, however, is that suddenly neither party has real confidence in the electoral process -- and thus the true believers in both parties claim (with a straight face) that the opposing party is gaming the system, at best, and subverting democracy itself, at worst.  Ergo, it is just a matter of time before one of our parties contests an election more successfully than Trump did in 2020, and at least some state legislatures, judges, and Governors actively participate in a "scheme" to overturn an election.  And then all this handwringing about the fate of "American democracy" will seem a lot more relevant than it does now!


Republicans, to their credit, are starting to push back hard against Democrats' claims that their election integrity bills are designed to prevent minorities from voting.  If that's true, then such efforts have been spectacularly unsuccessful over the last couple of decades, since voter ID measures have proliferated, but minorities have voted at increasingly high levels regardless.


In other news, future House Speaker (?) Kevin McCarthy is saying that he'll boot several Democrats off their committees should Republicans take over the House in January 2023.  That's an understandable reaction to similar purges initiated by the Dems under Nancy Pelosi, but I believe that "tit for tat" is bad policy, in this particular case.  I say the voters get to choose who will represent them in Congress, and if they select incompetent, boneheaded hacks, so be it.  Those hacks should be representing their constituents, not only by voting on legislation but also by serving on committees.  If we continue to follow the logic of stripping certain Congressmen of their rights, it's only a matter of time before controversial members are simply unseated altogether, and then our democracy will look even more threadbare than it already does.


And here's a little food for thought: in 2020, we managed to virtually abolish the phenomenon of rejecting absentee/mail-in ballots because they failed to meet all the criteria established under law.  In other words, EVERY ballot, no matter how flawed, was counted, because most of those ballots (duh!) were bound to be votes for Joe Biden.  Now, though, that the dynamics have shifted, the rejection of mail-in ballots is once again occurring much more often, and in some cases at amazingly high rates.  This should make any sensible person think twice about the legitimacy and fairness of the process in 2020...and today!  The counting of votes ought to be CONSISTENT from one election cycle to the next, after all. 


  1. That's correct Nick, our democracy (also a word used by communists in Europe to denote socialist dictatorships) definitely peaked with "Tricky Dick" when he and Dr. Henry Strangelove sold us out to the PRC (China).

    Their recognition of the most ruthless dictatorship in the world, gave the green light for our greedy corporations to transfer our industrial base to China, and enabled them to cause all sorts of trouble in the world today, aided and abetted by our home grown ideological pimps and puppets.

  2. Dr.Waddy from Jack: My vote for best moment for our democracy was when Donald Trump derailed the thought certain ascession of entitled,vindictive, totalitarian Hillary. Our brilliant Founders foresaw the possibility that majority rule, a staple of a stable democracy,yet could at times work injustice. It would have done that in 2016 had teeming, elitist NY and Ca forced Hillary on a real America which holds her in contempt as intense as that which she has for us! The Electoral College, designed to prevent a counterintuitively motivated elite from prevailing simply because it has greater numbers of voters (as is demonstrably true in NY state, where conservatives might as well be insects or microbes for all the say we have in our governance, due to lala NYC's amoebic population) is a proven institution of our democracy. And of course, WE KNOW, the Dums would laud it if it happened to work for them. But gee, leftists tend to stick with their own don't they? They don't want to live in the real America unless they can take it by storm and Virginia may have learned 'em about that!

  3. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Its probably true that both parties have doubts about our national electoral system. But let us keep in ever in mind that doubts harbored by conservatives(who must of necessity embrace the GOP, with reservations) stem from the unprecedented assault by the American left (which now commands the Dems) over the last now 50 years, on all fundamentals of our culture, society, polity and legality! No longer are both sides yet loyal Americans; the American left means to impose "fundamental transformation", according toits Marxist totalitarian model. And the Dems cringe at their every whim!

  4. Dr. Waddy from Jack: The Dems' doubts naturally stem from the failure of their will to prevail in every "democratic" contest. This onerous reality is confirmation to them(as dictated by their far leftist commanders) of definitive injustice.Being so, it leads to their already prepped minds, justification for the now traditional far leftist maxim: "by any means necessary!"

  5. Dr. Waddy from Jack: I think your reservations about Rep. McCarthy's apparent intent to purge Dems are creditable. But I would also, in support, suggest the maxim(!?) "keep your enemies closer" to be advisable when dealing with the gangsterish left! Keep 'em occupied in spewing their uncontrollable emotions in established settings so that all may behold their desperate throes! Let us hope this will obtain by the end of this yearin America but let us NOT spare any measure of resolve to make it so.This is fundamentally, existentially vital. Let us avoid all assumption of victory no matter how favorable its chances appear now. Remember, this is the far left, which presents the most profound threat to American well being, ever encountered. Please do not ever underestimate their Marxist evil!

  6. Ray Ray Ray -- your anti-Nixon animus pains me! What would motivate you to relent? Maybe I could slip a few yuan in your pocket?

    Agreed, Jack: 2016 was a great demonstration of the enduring power of the popular will versus elite condescension. It was a beautiful thing to behold, even if the elite did manage to even the score four years later.

    Good point that the leftist crazies in Congress are actually, by their fulminations, contributing to the rise of the right and the decline of the Left. That being said, maybe we should, instead of evicting someone like AOC from committees, make her the ranking Democrat on as many committees as possible! Make her the poster girl for the Dems, in other words.

    1. Nick,

      Tell me why you think Nixon was such a great president, and then maybe I will do a rethink, although I doubt it, unless you give me a really good explanation of his merits and so on.

  7. Nick,

    No apologies for Nixon. Sorry, but the man recognized a criminal regime just the way FDR recognized another one in the early 1930s. Also, the man attempted to cover up Watergate when he did not have to. In addition, he got us out of Vietnam, but took his sweet time in doing so, and I would not be surprised if he made a deal with the PRC in return. Not sure why you like him. The peak was with Reagan in my opinion, and then after that everything went downhill beginning with the Clintons until Trump.

  8. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Oh I think we'll be seeing Comrade AOC's baleful visage in many settings in the near future. I trust they would not be highlighted "all glory to Dear Leader Alexandra" at least not quite yet.You know some of the very forceful and determined photos, obviously cherry picked, of Hillary in her expected pre coronation days, may well have had an effect unfavorable to her. They blatted: "all you doubters of Hillary, no doubt simply because she is a woman, need to be forced to see how capable she is!" Ehh, no we didn't need such presumptuous political correction! I'm certain a decisive majority (even including , gasp, "mennn. . .") would gladly vote for women who do not evince a vindictive sense of entitlement, as Hillary surely did. As AOC' star rises I hope someone photographs her definitive mien: a sneer!

  9. Oh, I wouldn't presume to educate you about Nixon, Ray. You probably know more about him than I do. The funny thing is that the reason you hate him is the reason I admire him. The recognition of China I would call Realpolitik. Nixon was playing off one evil empire against another, setting us up brilliantly to defeat them both. I mean, you could say all the same mean things about his detente policy with the Soviets as you did about his rapprochement with Red China...except that you wouldn't, because reaching out to the Soviets didn't strengthen them or embolden them. Instead, it contributed to the collapse of their regime. Cause and effect are slippery concepts in the real world, Ray! Personally, I just don't see the inexorable rise of China to the present day as Nixon's fault. A lot of bad decisions were made in the West long after Nixon left the scene... But was Nixon perfect? Far from it. He wasn't even that conservative. I think I like him mainly because no one else does!

    I agree, Jack: Americans would gladly vote for a woman who was worthy of the office of the President. Here's hoping our first female prez will be a conservative Republican!

    1. Lots of people who were around when Nixon was still president love the man, plus people who were not around when he was president, who think he is great after reading books in defense of his administration.

      I do not HATE Nixon! Let's get that straight right now. However, I do not LOVE Reagan either, as many think I should.

      "Realpolitik", as you know is the obsession of Dr. Henry Kissassinger, who, as you also know, was devoted to this theory while he was at Harvard. That arrogant asshole apparently thinks that 19th Century European politics can be played with the f***king PRC.

      No, I don't hate Nixon, I just feel sorry for him, in the sense that he was stupid enough to try to cover up for a bunch of S***heads who should have known better to do what they did at Watergate.

      Also, a lot of good men died in Vietnam. while Dr. Kissmycolon was in Paris negotiating with the Vietnamese Communists and double crossing the South Vietnamese. Hope that SOB enjoyed the French pastry.

  10. Good philosophy, Ray. I don't waste my time loving or hating politicians, either. They're all just mortals, in the end, flawed like you and me. Well, mainly you. Ha ha.

    Nixon definitely handled Watergate stupidly. He created a culture of "dirty tricks" -- or rather, he continued the same culture of dirty tricks that had operated for much of our history -- and he got burned for it. Oh well.

    I personally believe that the Nixon/Kissinger strategy in Vietnam was sound. Yes, Kissinger talked about a "decent interval", but he created the conditions for South Vietnam to survive to this day. The Dems created the conditions for it to go down in flames. I blame the Dems!