Posted on 06/28/2016 5:20:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
One of the common laments of leftist commentators in Europe and America concerning Brexit is that holding referendums is a bad idea.
The most frequently expressed example is the contempt in which the left holds British Prime Minister David Cameron for having suggested the referendum in the first place.
But why would the left hate referendums? Doesn't it claim to represent "the people"? Isn't "power to the people" one of the most popular sayings of the left? Isn't the American left trying to abolish the Electoral College precisely because it isn't directly representative of "the people's" will?
One would imagine, therefore, that if anyone would welcome referendums it would be the left.
So, what gives?
The answers explain a great deal about the left.
First, the left cares about "the people" as much as the Soviet Communist Party cared about the workers. For the left, real people are either political fodder or, when they support the left, useful idiots.
The left loves power, not people.
Repeat: The left loves power, not people.
If that is not understood, the left is not understood.
The European Union is a perfect example. It is a left-wing exercise in controlling people -- in this case, entire nations. That great source of societal damage -- the faceless and nameless bureaucrat, in this instance located in Brussels, Belgium -- seeks to control as much of every individual European's life as possible. There is no limit to the number and extent of rules the EU passes.
To the left nations are archaic constructs, impediments to the left-wing ideal of a world without national identities. This utopia, governed ultimately by a worldwide Brussels -- the United Nations or something like it -- will be run by a secular totalitarian clergy consisting of left-wing parties; left-wing intellectuals in academia and the media; big corporations vying for government subsidies; and big labor, whose leaders embody the love of power. Fellow travelers include environmentalist and feminist organizations and the religious Left (to the extent that organized Western religion will exist in a left-wing-run world).
Since its beginning, the major, if not only interest the left has had in people is to control them.
That is the reason for the left's fear and loathing of referendums. Every referendum gives people who are not yet controlled by the left the exceedingly rare opportunity to exercise power.
That is what the people of California did when they voted to amend their state's constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The left loathed the proposal, characterizing it as "hate." And after it was passed the left did what it always does when it can: used judges to overturn the popular will.
The British nation did last week what the citizens of California had done. They exercised their will independently of the left. Those British whose minds were not yet influenced by the left said that they would rather have Britain stay British and be self-governing than become an identity-free European country governed by Brussels.
Thus, the left is now apoplectic. No one should be able to defy the left and get away with it. Just as almost everyone of any prominence who supported California's Proposition 8 was ultimately punished (like the CEO of Mozilla Firefox, who despite his universally acknowledged fair treatment of gays was targeted with furious attacks solely for supporting the notion that marriage should have remain defined as it had always been, a union between the two sexes).
America should have a referendum on whether or not to exit the United Nations, that moral wasteland beloved by the left. In light of Brexit, Republicans should strongly endorse the idea, even if the results aren't binding.
Brexit represents a ray of optimism. But in the long run, even referendums may not matter. As long as the left controls education and the news and entertainment media, brainwashed populations will vote to destroy their nations and Western civilization in general, as is already happening in the institution most controlled by the left: the university.
In the meantime, long live the referendum, the last remaining tool for the non-elites and the non-leftists to express themselves.
I guess they would say that only elites care about proper usage. I think standards still count for something.
I don’t see what your issue is. If people’s stated goal doesn’t match their actions, then perhaps they’re not telling the truth about the goal. To define the Left’s goal as achieving and exercising power over others fits their actions perfectly.
And the first time this happened, it would be dead on arrival. The courts would vacate this so fast, heads would spin.
The left makes much hay over "voter disenfranchisement". If a state in which the majority voted for candidate A were to instead vote for candidate B, the result would be the mother of all "voter disenfranchisement" lawsuits.
...why would the left hate referendums? Doesn't it claim to represent "the people"? Isn't "power to the people" one of the most popular sayings of the left? Isn't the American left trying to abolish the Electoral College precisely because it isn't directly representative of "the people's" will? ...The answers explain a great deal about the left. First, the left cares about "the people" as much as the Soviet Communist Party cared about the workers. For the left, real people are either political fodder or, when they support the left, useful idiots. The left loves power, not people.
That’s what SHOULD happen.
Some law professors have noted that the plain language of the Constitution empowers the states to select their electors in whatever way they choose. Whether they are pledged to a party, or to a popular concept was never addressed, because such an outrage apparently hadn’t been contemplated.
When an argument reaches a hypertechnical and politicized Supreme Court, who knows what would happen? “Original intent” or “Plain reading” of the language?
That's true, but it takes a real twisting of the Constitution to turn that into "the electors can vote for whoever they choose".
Today, someone could win the popular vote by simply getting everyone in California, New York, and a few more states on the east or west coast to vote for them. Combine high turnout in those states with normal (i.e. low) turnout everywhere else, and that's an achievable result. I'll leave it to the reader to imagine a campaign strategy that would achieve this.
The Electoral College was created for a very specific reason: to prevent this from happening. A candidate for President must build a coalition of states with a majority of electoral votes. Anyone that whines about the Electoral College wasn't paying attention in class, or is just unhappy with the outcome.
If one thinks an elector can vote their conscience, then I would ask: "why doesn't the Electoral College hold a second vote in case of a tie?". Per the 12th Amendment, the election (for President) is instead held in the House of Representatives. There's no opportunity for an elector to select an alternate.
Yes, it takes a real twisting of the Constitution’s original intent. And, yes indeedy, if the National Popular Vote Initiative were to be employed (or attempted), the campaign, and the voting fraud, would be epic.
I’d be very surprised if that is true. I know David a bit and I can’t recall him coming down on the side of ‘equality’, but I could have missed it. My only real irritation with David over the years has been some attacks on paleo-conservatives but other than that he’s usually way better than the vast majority of neocons. In fact I don’t think I’d include him among the neocons, he’s sort of sui generis like James Burnham.
I think David Horowitz is terrific, but I remember him as being a writer who identified “equality” as the primary goal of the Left. Could be I’ve gotten my analysts all in a muddle, though.
My personal view is that what leftists want most is freedom from constraint, to act as they choose at all times with no consequences, natural, social, or legal. For some this means freedom to act on their desire to control, injure, or kill others without restraint. For others, it means the freedom to do basically nothing, while having all their wants supplied by “society.”
“but I remember him as being a writer who identified “equality” as the primary goal of the Left.”
Well you remember accurately, but he certainly no longer holds to the values of the Left. Nearly a Paul on the Road to Damascus conversion. IMO opinion Dennis Prager holds on to far more liberal baggage than David Horowitz.
I agree on both points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.