It has come to my attention that many of my more ‘progressive’ compatriots use of the word ‘Democracy’ suffers from, not only misapplication much of the time, but also perplexingly oxymoronic application.
By definition, the word means
1.) A political system ruled by the people, either directly or through elected representatives. Or
2.) The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organised group can make decisions binding on the whole group.
Or, as Thomas Jefferson would have said, “Wherein 51% of the People tell the other 49% what they can or cannot do”.
Okay, let us test the first definition against fact: the U.S. House of Representatives presents a new bill to the Senate for approval. The Senate guts the bill, rewrites it, refuses to have it read on the floor of the Senate (as per law dictates) and passes it, late at night, the day before taking recess, in a closed door session, referring to it as a ‘Christmas present’.
To great media fanfare, the President signs the bill into law as quickly as possible. Polls taken by various organisations reflect general disapproval by the majority of the People, say 72%.
So where is the application of the ‘democratic process’ in this convoluted example of reality? Easy, there isn’t one. This is of no concern to many wordsmithing hypocrites who proceed to spin the hell out of such unscrupulous behaviour, excusing the act through the use of all sorts of emotional adjectives, despite the fact that the ‘majority’ of Americans, in this case, doesn’t agree with the law that has been forced upon them.
The same group has also displayed the same sort of inconsistencies when referring to ‘equal rights’ for ‘minorities’, a term whose precise definition seems increasingly static and difficult to nail down. The word may be used to describe any of those who represent those of a fiscal, material, intellectual, religious or ethnic minority. One can easily see how an individual may fall into one or more category, thereby making them members of ‘multiple minorities’.
I find use of the word, as well as the precedence set by it, extremely troubling. For instance, if precise records were kept, any particular ‘minority’ who ‘becomes comfortable’ enjoying all of the benefits of being such, may find themselves stripped of said benefits once ‘critical mass’ is achieved through reproduction of said minority or death of a particular ‘majority’, or once another group becomes ‘more minor’ than the first. It is predictable that the first group, having grown accustomed to such preferential treatment may revolt after the withdrawal of such, and not altogether unrealistic to presume that leaders of such groups may even resort to manipulation through population ‘quotas’, thereby insuring that they remain the selected minority.
A minority is generally the thorn in the heel of the majority, who, through constant belly-aching in respect to ‘inequality’, receives some sort of special treatment, which is opposed to equal treatment under the law. It soon dawns on even the lowest form of idiot that ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease’.
A minority was responsible for the smoking ban. It all began with a small group who, through their incessant whining, convinced the FAA to implement a smoking restriction on commercial flights of less than two hours. Through tireless lobbying and legislation, the anti-smoking zealots have nearly succeeded in having the smoking of tobacco declared as illegal.
It is therefore conceivable that certain shiftless members of a government may make concerted efforts to subdivide the populace so that minorities eventually make up the majority, with a different set of laws to govern each.
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!” – Walter Scott.
So much for ‘democracy’ in a Republic.