Replies

“The Founders opted for a constitutional REPUBLIC.
Not a democracy which is nothing but mob rule.”

Yes we are a constitutional republic.

But the constitution is only a piece of paper - it only takes on strength if at least the majority of the population actively supports and defends its ideals.

And a republic is simply a representative democracy - which means that people elect, through a simple majority, delegates to represent the interest of that majority. So it’s simply democracy once removed.

A constitution loses most of its power once the majority stops supporting it. But you say, it takes super majorities to change the constitution. Not really.

A determined and persistent simple majority can sooner or later “modify” the constitution without the need of a super majority or the arduous process to amend it.

You might ask, how do you do that? Simple, we’ve already seen how to do it. Install supremes that “interpret” the constitution as they see fit - ie, make it a “living constitution” disregarding the original meaning and intent of what it says.

You arrive at such an anti-constitution supreme court if there is a majority who don’t like the constitution and keep electing presidents that represent their point of view. Over a period of time, if that persists, those presidents will keep appointing justices that believe in a “living constitution”. And voila the simple majority gets its way.

Isn’t that the way it essentially already is? Look at how many of the bill of rights have already been seriously eroded - freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of association, gun rights, state rights... - with no amendments necessary - just rulings from the appointed supremes.

Thus the persistent simple majority (the “mob”) in a republic will, over the long run, get its way, regardless of what constitution there may be.

Now, there are times when a minority (sometimes even a single person) could actually end up running things rather than the majority. This happens in dictatorships when the dictator manages to co-opt and control the “forces of order” and rule by brutal force.

The other way this can happen is through political activism by a small groups of dedicated, radical, fanatical demagogues (many self anointed “intellectual elites”) convinced of the righteousness of their ideas.

They get their agenda implemented two ways.

1. If not the majority, a big fraction of the population consists of what Stalin called “useful idiots”. It’s a very accurate term. These are people who have no strong core beliefs who waft with the winds of emotions and thus are easily manipulated especially through guilt, and thus very useful to any good demagogue. The activists understands this very well and are very good at playing to their emotions (save mother earth, guilt for past sins, sympathy for druggies (aka, “homeless”), “social justice”, CRT, defund the evil police, and on and on). And so by getting most of the useful idiots to see things their way, plus their fellow true believers (”progressives”) who are naturally inclined to radical transformation (these are the people incapable of connecting dots, who’ve learned nothing from history), the activists are able to cobble together a majority which will elects representatives that will implement their agenda.

2. The second way is when activists don’t go through the trouble of cobbling up a majority, instead they go directly after the elected representative, institutions, and corporations. They will use intimidation, shaming, terrorism, infiltration, threats... to influence these representatives and institutions. Many cave to their demands. But what has been their most successful strategy is taking over institutions, organizations and corporations through stealthy infiltration and eventual take over. What Gramsci called “the long march through the institutions”. Can you think of any institutions, organizations, corporations that they don’t control? Hell even the Salvation Army has succumbed!

So bottom line, activists run the world. A version of the “squeaky wheel”. And the left is infinitely better at this than our side.

So in a sense, we ARE living in “Plato’s Republic”, but I doubt that Plato would approve of these “experts” we have running our lives. The major flaw in his proposal was the assumption that wise, saintly types would fill those positions. He obviously didn’t understand human nature.

What do you think?