Democracy vs. Constitutional Republic

Here CNN tries to convince the low information voters that the US is a Democracy. They do so by mocking voters who understand, at some level, that the US is not a Democracy, though being low information voters they can not articulate why.

Let’s see if we can help CNN and these low information voters out.

We are NOT a Democracy. Democracy is a leveling political system that is characterized by a strict majority vote. It is the rule of the mob. Democracy is always first and foremost concerned with equality and is a system that guarantees the rule of those who always serve the interests of the lowest common denominator in the population. Democracy is the aristocracy of the bad, the false, and the envious.

We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is system whereby the mob cannot rule, limited as they are by the strictures of the US Constitution and by the inherent checks and balances within the system. A Constitutional Republic is always first and foremost concerned with liberty for the man who walks in terms of the law and constraint against the man who walks contrary to the law. A Constitutional Republic is the aristocracy of the meritorious – a meritocracy.

The Founders warned gravely against Democracy. Edmund Randolph, delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Virginia said;

“The general object of the Convention was to provide a cure for the follies and fury of Democracies.”

Elbridge Gary and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut urged the Constitutional Convention to create a system that would eliminate the evils that flow from the excess of Democracy.

Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional delegate from New York said;

“We are now forming a Republican Government. real liberty is not found in democracy. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

John Adams said;

“Democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time democracy will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel.”

The Constitution itself requires a Republican form of government for all states. This indicates that originally we were a Republic of Republics.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked ” “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied; “A Republic if you can keep it.”

Now to be sure our Constitutional Republic had a touch of democracy in it with the direct election of House members by voters but that was where the democracy impulse ended. Originally, there was no direct vote of US Senators, no direct vote for US Presidents and no vote at all for SCOTUS appointees.

The US was never a democracy though the lugenpresse and the lying Politicians (but I repeat myself) constantly talk about how “We are a democracy.”

We were never formed to be a democracy. However, that is indeed where we have matriculated over the course of years. The US Constitution is no longer a check on the vicious use of raw power. The 17th amendment inched us more towards a direct democracy. The stripping of state’s rights also pushed us towards a direct democracy. The 9th and 10th amendments, which were bulwarks against democracy are completely irrelevant.

So, while it is true that according to original intent these united States were never intended to form a democracy, that is largely where we have come to. Indeed, one might be inclined to observe that we are a democratically elected Kakistocracy — that is a government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.

Because we have been a Kakistocracy for so long now, all that is left to choose from to elect to governmental office are derelicts, mountebanks, and perverts. Because we, as a people, have been in a Kakistocracy for so long all of our Institutions have become corrupt, feeble, cancerous and unprincipled. Living in the US now is like living among Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, and the One Hundred Twenty perverts.

Even the visible Church is now a Kakistocracy. It weeds out the best men, or, failing that so intimidates otherwise good men they dare not lift their voice against the ecclesial Kakistocracy less they lose their livelihood. Just ask Michael Spangler, Ryan Turnipseed or Bret McAtee and they will tell you that the intent of “accountability” that church government was suppose to foster is now simply a mechanism whereby good men can be held accountable to wicked or small men and so be squashed.

However, lest we stray to far from our original intent, this nation was never intended to be a democracy and if CNN ever sticks a microphone in your face to mock you, you now have the ammunition to mock them right back… mock them for being so stupid that they could possibly ever suggest that US was founded to be a democracy.

Finally, after reading this, perhaps the next time you hear Joe Biden or the Democrats bleat about how if we elect Trump to be president we could “lose our democracy,” your response will be,

“Dear God, I hope so.”

McAtee Disagrees and Agrees with C. J. Engel on the Problem with Theonomist Social Theory

“Stephen Wolfe’s disagreement with James White and Wilson (and Joe Boot too) reflects precisely what I’ve been talking about for years: the inability of modern political theologies to properly understand the function of the Political within the paradigm of civil society.

People thought it odd that I would draw parallels between theonomic thinking and liberalism; but I have always emphasized that both of these models adopt the modern view that society springs forth out of the heart of man: the soul must be converted and the integrity of the political order at large is downstream from the conversion of souls. Liberalism of course is a secularized version of such things but the fact remains that for them, politics reflects culture.

This neglects the role of hegemony in society and the fact that society always reflects the vision and ethos of its elites. This is especially true and unavoidable in the post-Managerial revolution where culture is a product of political calculus and flows out from the plans of social engineers. The fact of the matter is that the Political serves the role within civil society of “Society making.” It mediates and facilitates the soul of the people, the ethos that will be adopted by that people; a nation reflects its rulers.

Read: the magisterial reformers (Turretin, Hooker, Vermigli, etc), Paul Gottfried, de Jouvenal, Carl Schmitt, James Burnham, the Paleoconservatives, and even people like Edmund Burke, the counter-revolutionaries, and the Federalists. They understand Power and it’s function to craft the souls of men and societies far better than most moderns.”

C. Jay Engel
X Post

1.) First, I think it profitable to emphasize the proper definition of culture here since Engel posits that theonomists and liberals posit that politics reflects culture. If we understand that culture is the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs or, more succinctly put, culture is theology externalized, then we have to understand that it is indeed the case that politics reflects culture.

2.) Now, we must note that while Engel may indeed be correct observing “the fact that society always reflects the vision and ethos of its elites.” However, it is simply the case that the vision and ethos of the elites is itself a result of their theology being externalized into the political order. So, the theonomist would argue that if one wants to see change in a given culture it is not so much mass conversions that are required but rather conversions of a people’s elites. This fits well with the accounts of early Christian mission efforts where we read that the early Christian missionaries would go to the King, Shaman, or tribal wise man knowing that if conversion could be made among these then the whole people would follow.

So, despite Engel’s denial “that society springs forth out of the heart of man:” it remains the case. The difference between myself and chaps like White, Wilson, and Boot is that I am insisting that it is not the heart of mass man out of which society springs, but rather society springs out of the heart of the ruling elites or even in some cases one ruling elite in the case of someone like King Alfred or Oliver Cromwell.

3.) So it remains true, despite Engel’s denial that “the integrity of the political order at large is downstream from the conversion of souls.” Our difference is on whose soul’s conversion are necessary in order to have the integrity of political order. Engel rightly protests that the likes of Wilson, White, and Boot who think that there needs be mass conversions in order to effect this change. I enter the same protest but without denying that politics reflects culture — the culture of the elites and so society at the same time reflects the culture of its rulers.

4.) I quite agree with Engel that the “Political serves the role within civil society of ‘Society making.’” However, I insist that theology/religion serves the role within civil society of ‘Elite Making.’ This is a Theonomic observation and demonstrates that Theonomy remains the only model that can consistently provide relief.

5.) Having read many of Engel’s recommendation, I remain on solid ground.

Immanentizing the Eschaton … A Brief Engagement with Stephen Wolfe

In a 31 minute video Stephen Wolfe says he does not want to immanentize the Eschaton while at the same time saying he wants to order the temporal things after the eternal. This is doublespeak. If one orders the temporal things after the eternal then one is immanentizing the eschaton to some degree.

I do agree that there is a danger with a philosophy that goes overboard in trying to immanentize the eschaton for the reason that such a project, when not constrained, denies the fallenness of man and original sin. When not constrained, immanentizing the eschaton, does not understand that in this life we never get all the glory now.

Having said that, immanentizing the eschaton is an inescapable category. All men will seek to build the present based on their idealized future. It would be insane not to pursue that. Of course, our problem is, is that those outside of Christ have a very different vision of the idealized future.

On this matter consider that our Lord Jesus taught us to pray that His will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. Now if we, as God’s people, not only pray that but also live in terms of that prayer then we will be working, to some degree or another, on immanentizing the eschaton.

Finally, do keep in mind, that the dangers occurring from seeking to immanentize the eschaton have chiefly come from the Christ haters seeking to immanentize their humanistic vision of the eschaton. It is the Stalins and the Maos and the Pol Pots, and the Bela Kuns who have been those who bloodied the planet with their attempt to build humanist Utopias that were reflections of their Christless vision of the immanentized eschaton.

Heidi Complains That Christian Nationalists Believe Rights Come From God

“The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, (not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different), is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God,”

Heidi Przybyl
Guest on Talking Head MSNBC Show

Imagine my effrontery to believe that I am endowed by my Creator with certain inalienable rights, and as such do not have to wait, hat in hand, for some government, steeped in humanism and owning allegiance to Man as God said loudly, to determine for me what “rights” they will piece meal out to me.

The stupidity of this woman is a new low but it is revelatory of the mindset of our enemies. These people really do believe that “in the state we live and move and have our being.” These people really do embrace that since we have no god over us, the State is therefore god.

Of course, she really doesn’t believe that it is a problem for people not to believe rights come from the State. If the state took away the right to abortion, for example, can you imagine how loud Heidi’s screeching would be that “the Government has no right to do that?” Would Heidi, at that point, suddenly become a Christian because she would be acting in a way as to demonstrate her belief that “rights come from something higher than the state.”

Now, keep in mind in all this that R2K agrees with Heidi that rights don’t come from God — at least not directly. R2K believes that all rights come from Natural Law. So, Heidi and David Van Drunen have in common that Christians should not be appealing directly to God but to some other agency for human “rights.” Heidi believes the appeal should be made to the State. David Van Drunen believes the appeal should be made to Natural Law.

Leithart’s Analysis On The Reasons For Trump Support Are Wrong

Peter Leithart is one of those “dumbest smart people who have ever lived” types. Over here he moves in the opposite direction of Occam’s razor seeking to complicate what is profoundly simple, trying to explain why Trump remains so popular among elements of the Christian community.

Trump remains popular among middle class, rural, blue-collar, white Christians because those middle class, rural, blue-collar, white Christians for primarily one reason and that reason is because the middle class, rural, blue-collar, white Christians believe (rightly or wrongly) that Trump is the man who is going to keep them from continuing to be vomited upon by the Uni-party globalists that now occupy Washington. This voting bloc is supporting Trump because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that he is the embodiment for who they are. This voting bloc believes (rightly or wrongly) that Trump is the vehicle through which the Christian values of Nationalism, particularity, opposition to crime, and the requirement to be armed,  will be returned to and sustained.

Instead of realizing this simple reality Leithart goes on and on with the “scapegoat who refuses to be the scapegoat” metaphor. He waxes eloquent citing French scholar Renee’ Girard.

Trump is also being supported because the establishment DC uni-party hates him so thoroughly. This voting bloc supporting Trump can smell and feel the vitriol and animus glowing from the Trotskyite Republicans and Stalinesque Democrats and because this voting bloc has the same feelings towards the Trotskyite Republican party and the Stalinesque Democratic party the best way to show their animus is by wildly supporting Trump. This wild support of Trump is animal defiance to the uni-party coming from the voting bloc of which we are speaking.

One doesn’t have to reach for Girard or scapegoats to explain the wild support for Trump among Christians.

Leithart writes errantly,

“American society is at a critical moment. It’s not exactly a war of all against all, but a war of faction against faction against faction against faction. And, just as the script prescribes, one faction trots out an orange-haired scapegoat, President Donald Trump. For many of our elites, Trump is a mortal threat to democracy, the chief source of disorder, the mobilizer of the deplorables. Remove him, and peace will flow like a river. One man must be destroyed to save the polity.”

The error in the above is found in Leithart’s belief that “for many of our elites, Trump is a mortal threat to democracy.” I do not believe that is true. What many of the elites are afraid of in point of fact is that their own threat to Republican form of government is threatened by Trump. It is true that  many of our elites say that they believe that Trump is a threat to Democracy but we need to keep in mind here of the old Alinsky principle that holds to accuse your enemy of what you yourself are guilty.  It is the elites who are a threat to our Constitutional Republican form of government but what better way to mask that then to blame Trump of the same thing. The elites are afraid that somehow Trump is an end to their desire to absolutely control American society. Our elites desire to implement a social credit control system on America such as is found in China. Trump is a threat to that program.

So, Leithart’s analysis is just in error because he over complicates the painfully obvious. Christians are wildly supporting Trump because they believe the uni-party desires to destroy them and, rightly or wrongly, the voting bloc we are talking about wildly supports Trump.

I write all of this as one who has never voted for Trump, nor ever will vote for Trump because I do not believe about Trump what many of those Christians who wildly support Trump believe about him. I do not agree with their wild support but I understand it and sympathize with their support. After all, who wants to die when a possible champion might take up your cause against a powerful enemy?

And make no mistake about it… the uni-party in DC desires to snuff out the MAGA crowd, and especially all those Christians who are wildly supporting Trump.