What the Democrats’ Reactionary Views on Voting Actually Mean

The Democrats appear poised to win control of one or both houses of Congress. So it’s a good time to revisit the Democrats' reactionary designs on our electoral process, especially now that their party is increasingly captured by the radically counter-Enlightenment, Marxist-oriented anti-American Democratic Socialists of America, whose agenda includes totalitarian Democracy fundamentalism. 

In a leadup to Martin Luther King Jr. day, 2022, President Joe Biden gave a rousing speech in Georgia pushing his party’s so-called Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act,* which combines the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. But this was no mere campaign-style speech. Biden dove right into the thick of political philosophy, reaching straight back to the Founding of America. In doing so, Biden clearly and explicitly exposed the reactionary premises of the Democratic Party.

After falsely claiming voting rights across America as under threat from laws like Georgia’s new voting law as, Biden’s philosophic treason comes into full view:

The filibuster has been weaponized and abused.

Today I’m making it clear: To protect our democracy, I support changing the Senate rules, whichever way they need to be changed — (applause) — to prevent a minority of senators from blocking action on voting rights.  (Applause.)  

When it comes to protecting majority rule in America, the majority should rule in the United States Senate.  

I make this announcement with careful deliberation, recognizing the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. [My emphasis]

This is nothing short of a repudiation of America and its Enlightenment roots. The Declaration of Independence states clearly, in these “magnificent words” as per Doctor Martin Luther King Jr., 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . [my emphasis]

This is not mere rhetorical flourish. America has never been about majority rule. The idea of unalienable Rights and the government’s sole purpose to “to secure these rights” is deeply rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, led by John Locke, embraced by America’s Founding Fathers, and ultimately, clarified and solidified by 20th Century philosopher Ayn Rand. The principle of individual rights is derived from man’s individual nature as a rational being, and precedes government. The truth is the exact opposite of Biden’s reactionary formulation: Man’s  fundamental inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are the rights from which all other rights—including the right to vote—flow.

After railing against Trump and his supporters for attempting to commandeer “the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies,” Biden announces that rights are privileges granted by government, a foundational power of totalitarian states. This is not a power of constitutional republics such as, in its Founding ideals—the very same ideals drawn on by King in support of his Civil Rights Movement—the United States of America!

So what does it mean, in practice, when “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow?” It means majority rule. Mob rule. When rights flow from the right to vote, then all rights flow from the government—and the flow goes both ways.

• It means the “rights” of majorities to vote minorities into slavery, which was a plank of the antebellum Democratic Party. 

• It means the “rights” of majorities, or the majority’s elected representatives, to force unwilling citizens to fund political campaigns. 

• It means the power to vote in governments to grant “rights” to material benefits, such as healthcare or education, that take away the rights of the citizens who are forced to provide and/or fund them—selectively, as in the regulatory welfare state, or across the board, as in a fully socialist country

• It means the “right” of voters to install sharia law, violating the right to freedom of religion.

• It means that Jim Crow laws were legitimate, democratically legitimate. Those laws were established by elected representatives--and, for a time upheld by the courts.

• It means endorsing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade because it made a women’s right to abortion a matter of democratic vote rather than inalienable. 

That’s exactly the evil that the Founders abolished. When the British government began systematically to take away the colonists’ “rights of Englishmen,” the Founders realized that there must be a firmer foundation for rights than the benevolent whims (or lack of) of a King or other ruling authority, including the rule of elected legislatures. They found that firm foundation for the preservation of their rights in the theory of natural rights, a product of The Enlightenment; the theory that man by his very nature, and his relationship to broader nature, requires the freedom to take the actions necessary for the furtherance of his life, secured by, in the words of John Locke, inalienable individual rights.  

The Democratic Party, along with the Confederate intellectuals, rejected those principles by radically reinterpreting the Founding of America as a Democracy, not a constitutional republic. The Democrats haven’t changed their stripes. They claimed rights were grants of state authority, derived from the vote, rather than from the laws of nature, and their elected governments deprived blacks their rights—The fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow--or not flow, as elected representatives deemed to declare. Today, on Democratic Party reactionary premises, an entire country can be voted into socialist slavery. The Democratic Party has Democratic Socialists embedded within. Venezuela elected and re-elected socialist leaders Chavez and Madura, and rights were systematically stripped away--voted away--turning Venezuela into an unfree, impoverished basket case. 

That’s what you get when you declare that rights come from the state--that the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. As we can clearly see in theory and in practice, a government from which rights flow is also a government from which rights can recede. Biden has it backwards. In fact, in a Democracy as conceived by Biden, the right to vote is the “right” that puts all other rights at risk.

Then came the final outrage of Biden’s philosophic treason. Biden framed the debate over his Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act in apocalyptic demagoguery—as a choice of democracy over autocracy, light over shadows, justice over injustice; as a choice for or against voter suppression, election subversion, and democracy. With a straight face, Biden dropped the hammer on opponents:

So, I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered? 

At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to be the si- — on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?  Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor?  Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

It was the Confederate intelligentsia that repudiated the ideal of inalienable individual rights, or natural rights theory, and reconceived America as a Democracy under which all rights flow from government—to protect their slavocracy. Who, then, is siding with the president of the slaveholding Confederacy, Jefferson Davis? Biden’s belief that “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow,” a principle upon which his Justice Department is basing its lawsuit against the state of Georgia over that state’s new election law, dovetails seamlessly with the philosophy of the Slave Power centered in Confederate States of America and its Democratic Party allies. 

To Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, election to political office in America is not an honorable job that entails doing the legal work of securing the fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens. To today’s democratic socialist Democrats, like the antebellum Democrats and the Jim Crow Democrats and the welfare state Democrats, getting elected to political office is a license for totalitarian power—to the extent they can get away with it—to do the work of deciding what rights are, who gets them, who doesn’t, and to enforce those “rights” through legal coercion. While pretending to be on the side of mid-twentieth century civil rights crusaders, Biden is actually on the opposite side philosophically. Whereas Martin Luther King Jr., for all of his mixed and inconsistent politics, was squarely on the side of the Founding principles. Joe Biden has chosen the opposite side. 

In case you think this is hyperbole, consider that Biden’s view is precisely affirmed by his own Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland, and by his Vice President, Kamala Harris, during her presidential candidacy. Since philosophy is the primary engine of history, who, then, is the real Protégé of Jefferson Davis? Add to this the fact that, as political scholar Michael Barone reminds us, “George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis were all partisan Democrats.” 

There is plenty more that is bad about the Democrats’ attempt to enact their election reforms. I covered the bad elements in my post HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy. Some version of the Democrats’ “Voting Rights” bill has been kicking around Congress for years. For now, it remains stalled. Let’s hope it never becomes law, and fight to kill it.

* (This bill remains stalled in Congress.)

Related Reading:

HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy

The Democrats’ Anti-Free Speech Bill HR-1—the ‘For the People Act’—is Still a Threat

The Dangerous Totalitarian Premise Underpinning the Justice Department’s Suit Against Georgia’s New Election Law

Harris's Unchanged anti-American Values

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right. 

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

Understanding the Role of the Senate Filibuster

Jesse Jackson’s Big Lie: ‘American Democracy is Under Siege’

A New Textbook of Americanism: The Politics of Ayn Rand edited by Jonathan Hoenig

On the Trump/Mamdani 'Lovefest'

 My FB Post:

“For all the hype of a conflict, President Trump and New York City's next mayor, Zohran Mamdani, had a surprising bond when they met Friday in the Oval Office: populist outsiders, lovers of the Big Apple, and two politicians who each want what the other has.” -- Axios

This is no surprise to me. Donald Trump has once again shown his true ideological orientation, this time in the most dramatic fashion—a “lovefest” with the openly Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani. Like Mamdani, Trump is fundamentally a collectivist. Collectivism is the foundation of Socialism, whether of the Fascist or Communist variety. 

It’s instructive that, after his meeting with Trump, which he characterized as “productive,” Mamdani reiterated his belief that Trump is a Fascist. Indeed, as Axios reported on “Why it matters: For a few minutes, Mamdani — whom Trump had called a communist — and Trump, whom Mamdani had called a fascist, gave a glimpse of how they might find common ground . . .“ Common ground, indeed! Whether or not Trump is a full-blown Fascist or Mamdani is a full-blown Communist, the fact remains that Fascism and Communism are, as the great champion of The Enlightenment Steven Pincker has observed, “fraternal twins.” No wonder the meeting went so well—these 2 are kindred spirits--Socialist at the core. 

Trump, remember, is a life-long New Yorker and Democrat. He and Mamdani both praised FDR, whose Constitution-upending New Deal mimicked Fascism, not Communism. Trump is also a Teddy Roosevelt admirer. TR was the Progressive who ran on the Republican label because he believed he couldn’t win as a Democrat. Like TR, Trump hijacked the Republican Party because he knew he wasn’t Leftist enough to win as a Democrat.

Please don’t tell me that this meeting is a mere pragmatic political ploy. Trump has given Democratic Socialism a nation-wide credibility and prestige it could never have earned on its own. This is how totalitarian Socialism comes to America—not on merits it doesn’t have, but by supposed Capitalists (which Trump is not) granting it a legitimacy it doesn’t and can never deserve. True, they are still political adversaries, and will probably butt heads in the future. But it will be superficial, not fundamental. Trump has pushed the Republican Party sharply to the Left, helping to pave the way for the Mamdani’s of the Democratic Party.

Related Reading:

Zohran Mamdani and Donald Trump Prove That There Are Two Paths Toward Socialism by J.D. Tuccille for Reason

Will Trump’s “State Capitalism … a Hybrid Between Socialism and Capitalism” Make America Great Again? by Michael Chapman for Capitalism Magazine and The Cato Institute

Related Viewing:

Reason on "Republican Socialism" -- Trump Embraces Mamdani Socialism as 'Practical'

The Foundations of Democratic Socialism Must Be Repudiated

In my last post, A Criminal Wins in NYC, I wrote:

As to why so many supposed “Americans” can turn to an ideology so diametrically opposed to Americanism, and what can be done to stop it, that is a discussion for another time.

Well, this is the time.

From CNN’s Democratic socialism, according to Zohran Mamdani

There’s a fair amount of confusion and fear generated in the US by the term “socialist,” which is associated with repressive societies like Communist China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR, North Korea or Cuba.

Communism, as expressed in “The Communist Manifesto,” supports the idea that there will be a class war in which private property and the means of production are seized for the public good. Think “Animal Farm.”

Democratic socialism does not support the notion of a class war and instead pursues socialist goals through democratic means.

“And,” Mamdani says, “I think ultimately, the definition for me of why I call myself a democratic socialist is the words of Dr. [Martin Luther] King decades ago. He said, call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. There must be a better distribution of wealth for all of god’s children in this country.” [sic]

Note that Mamdani does not repudiate the idea that “private property and the means of production are seized for the public good.” A government that can seize the means of production—all businesses, land, jobs, investments, etc.—is a totalitarian state. He just thinks that it should be done by “democratic means.” Does it matter? No. Whether by violent class war or “peaceful” elections, tyranny is still tyranny. But what principles justify such a criminal system? Yes, socialism attracts the seekers of the unearned, the envious, the powerlusters, the haters of the good. Those types have always existed. But what enabling factors bring these scoundrels into power?

Equality

Democracy

Altruism

Equality is unnatural. Human life is fundamentally individual. Each of us billions of people are unique, and so in a free society individual outcomes and conditions will naturally vary widely. Inequality is the iron law of human nature. When you hear economic inequality being presented as a problem for the government to “solve,” you are encountering a rebellion against nature itself. Thus, to get any kind of equality of outcome or condition, such as  “a better distribution of wealth,” the state must have totalitarian power over everyone’s lives, work, earnings and wealth. Note the precision of the Founding Fathers: The Declaration of Independence does not say “All men are equal.” It says “All men are CREATED equal”—meaning only at birth, equally free TO PURSUE their own values, goals, fortunes and happiness based on the rights to life and liberty, and to own whatever they achieve. But socialists believe life conditions, not individual rights, must be equal. There is no value in such equalities of outcome—which contradicts human nature—and no justice. If socialists are to be stopped, it is this version of equality that must be challenged and repudiated, because such a violation of natural law can only be imposed by at the point of ba gun.

Democracy is a manifestation of totalitarianism. It holds that elected officials can do whatever they please with everyone's lives and properties and for whatever goals they deem desirable. But do not confuse Democracy as a social system with the democratic process. in a free society like America’s, elections decide on political leaders, but the government’s powers are limited to protecting individual rights, and thus everyone’s freedom and properties are protected from schemes such as Mamdani’s. America is a constitutionally limited Republic with a democratic PROCESS, not a Democracy. If the Mamdanis and his ilk are to be stopped, it is Democracy that must be challenged and repudiated. 

Altruism is the moral theory that every individual is duty-bound to self-sacrificially serve the needs of others before himself. That morality is the heart, the soul, and the justification of socialism. That’s why it’s called SOCIALism; you owe your life to the collective, not to yourself. Capitalism is based on the opposite, the morality of rational self-interest, which holds that the individual has a moral right to make his own life the best it can be as long as he respects the same moral rights of others. This is the meaning of the most individualist political phrase ever, the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To its glory, that is the heart and soul of Capitalism.

Politically, the difference between Socialism and Capitalism is the difference between a totalitarian state and a free, rights-protecting government—in other words, between a Communist China, USSR, North Korea or Cuba, and a United States of America. To protect a free America from a Socialist America, be it Communist or Mamdani-style Democratic Socialist, it is Equality, Democracy, and Altruism that we must recognize as evil, and thoroughly repudiate.

If you think I am overstating Mamdani’s danger, then here’s more.

From Reason’s  Mamdani Teaming Up With Lina Khan Paints a Grim Picture of What's To Come

During his victory speech, Mamdani—a democratic socialist—opined that there's "no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about."

That's a disturbingly totalitarian view of the role of the state.

Indeed. That mindset puts every aspect of our lives in the crosshairs of our government. The Washington Post elaborates in Zohran Mamdani drops the mask

The mayor-elect divides New Yorkers into two groups: the oppressed and their oppressors.

A new era of class warfare has begun in New York, and no one is more excited than Generalissimo Zohran Mamdani. Witness the mayor-elect’s change of character since his Tuesday election victory.

Mamdani ran an upbeat campaign, with a nice-guy demeanor and perpetual smile papering over a long history of divisive and demagogic statements. New Yorkers periodically checking in on politics could understandably believe that he simply wanted to bring the city together and make it more affordable. That interpretation became much harder after his victory speech.

Across 23 angry minutes laced with identity politics and seething with resentment, Mamdani abandoned his cool disposition and made clear that his view of politics isn’t about unity. It isn’t about letting people build better lives for themselves. It is about identifying class enemies — from landlords who take advantage of tenants to “the bosses” who exploit workers — and then crushing them. His goal is not to increase wealth but to dole it out to favored groups. The word “growth” didn’t appear in the speech, but President Donald Trump garnered eight mentions.

People’s lives, in Mamdani’s world, can be improved only by government: “We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.” The crowd cheered, of course, but a thinking person might wonder whether it’s good for the institution that has a monopoly on violence to insist that nothing is beyond its purview.

Mamdani says he’s not a Marxist. But this is pure Marxism

Now, here’s more from CNN’s Democratic socialism, according to Zohran Mamdani

Mamdani quoted the most famous American socialist, Eugene Debs, in his acceptance speech Tuesday night and talked about doing more for “working people” as opposed to the rich.

It’s worth reading a bit more from Debs’ remarks.

DEBS: I believe, Your Honor, in common with all Socialists, that this nation ought to own and control its own industries. I believe, as all Socialists do, that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly owned — that industry, the basis of our social life, instead of being the private property of a few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of all…

I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.

Given that Capitalist fortunes are made by brilliant entrepreneurs providing values to millions and millions of average consumers—the people who work the jobs created by the talented fortune builders—it’s shocking that Debbs and his ilk are not radicals for Capitalism. But of course, common to all socialists is envy, powerlust, and hatred of productive achievers. They don’t give a damn about the “millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives.”

It’s that notion of seizing the means of production to which Mamdani’s fiercest critics have pointed. In comments he made on a recorded session for student activists with Young Democratic Socialists of America in 2021, he said that was the “end goal” of socialists like him.

The “end goal”—totalitarianism. This is Marxism. This is Communism. This is Zohran Mamdani. This is what is taking hold in America, under the brand Democratic Socialism.

I rest my case.

Related Reading:

The Passion of Socialists by Craig Biddle

Democratic Socialism: The Left Escalates America’s Journey to Totalitarianism

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

Democratic Socialism: The Rise of the Pigs

Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'

Democracy Fundamentalism vs. Americanism

A Socialist Confirms that the Basics of ‘True’ Socialism is Totalitarianism

The Myth of the Ill-Informed, Well-Intentioned Socialist

What is Capitalism? By Ayn Rand

Axios’s Slam of Meta’s Elimination of Fact-Checking System Exhibits Shocking Political Ignorance—Or Worse?

Meta just walked away from fact-checking, and AXIOS didn’t like it one bit. In More Speech and Fewer Mistakes, Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer, Joel Kaplan, explained:

In recent years we’ve developed increasingly complex systems to manage content across our platforms, partly in response to societal and political pressure to moderate content. This approach has gone too far. As well-intentioned as many of these efforts have been, they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable. Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in “Facebook jail,” and we are often too slow to respond when they do. 

We want to fix that and return to that fundamental commitment to free expression. Today, we’re making some changes to stay true to that ideal.

The changes? “Ending Third Party Fact Checking Program, Moving to Community Notes.” These “Independent Experts,” Kaplan explained, are “like everyone else.” [They] have their own biases and perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about what to fact check and how. 

Great!

But in Behind the Curtain: The new gatekeepers, Axios responded:

The truth is, it is an almost impossible task for companies to police speech without bias or unfairness. That leaves two other options — the government or individuals. Both X and Meta are choosing people, with an imperfect ‘community notes’ mechanism to correct misinformation in real time.

That opens most of social media up as a Wild West of expression, where high-quality, trustworthy information will commingle with garbage and misinformation. That's what free speech absolutists have long fought for.

There isn't a tyrant past or present who wouldn't cheer Axios. What does Axios think the government is? It's people. Individuals. The only difference is that the government people are armed. Axios apparently believes that individuals, acting privately, are incapable of distinguishing between high-quality, trustworthy information and garbage and misinformation, but individuals backed by the power of legalized force—the law—are somehow capable of creating that perfect mechanism by successfully making that distinction! This, from a private media company!

Axios acts like "government or [private] individuals" is a balanced choice. Nothing can be further from the truth. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of force and violence. A government edict is imposed on all media, leaving both media owners and consumers no choice—and with the power to levy fines and jail terms for saying the “wrong” thing. A private individual (or company) has no such legal power of coercion of any kind. A Mark Zuckerberg speech regulation, or lack thereof, only affects his own company, which is subject to competition, leaving the field open to other platforms with different content moderation standards—and consumers free to switch and choose. 

But, in Axios’s view, we end up with some "Wild West of expression," which implies lawlessness. WRONG! Speech cannot be legally used to violate others' rights. That's why we have laws against inciting violence, making terroristic threats, or endangering public safety. We have libel and slander laws to give victims a chance to recover damages inflicted by others’ lies. Our real danger is a Wild West of arbitrary government speech regulation.

The choice "government or individuals" is a choice of despotism or individual freedom—nothing more and nothing less. The very fact that the choice is even posed as legitimate and balanced shows shocking ignorance of basic political philosophy, of America's very Founding ideals, and of history more broadly—or, worse, an understanding of the stakes involved with Axios deliberately opening the door to despotism, with Axios becoming one of the government’s gatekeepers. As Megan McArdle presciently puts it,

If you see someone advocating for more suppression of dangerous speech — be it heresy, hate speech or “misinformation” — you can be sure they expect their side to have exclusive use of the ban-hammer.

I’ll give Axios the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance. But what does that say about the state of knowledge in our culture that a widely read social media outlet like Axios can spread such political misinformation with apparent impunity? 

Private platforms, of course, have a right to moderate content posted on their platforms by their customers. And they may find that some form of content moderation or suggestive bylines are necessary. Still, kudos to Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg for championing the powerful idea of intellectual freedom through  global information platforms governed by free speech — and the people — not by the platforms themselves.

The very idea of centralized fact-checking, whether by a private media company,  which is legitimate but can be problematic, or by the government, which is downright dangerous, ignores a crucial fact. What’s lost in all of the hand wringing over social media misinformation is the fact that it’s never been easier for the average person to do his own fact-checking.  Remember that consumers can easily reference professional fact-checkers on their own. All we need to do is get off of our lazy mental asses and do a bit of intellectual labor. 

Related Reading:

The Nature of Government, by Ayn Rand, From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The First Amendment Restricts Government, Not Private Citizens

Here’s the truth: Meta ending fact-checking is a win against censorship by Megan McArdle for WAPO.

The fact that merely letting people talk to each other feels like a dangerous concession to the right tells you just how much power progressives had amassed. Ironically, it reminds me of a quote cited often when conservatives complained about progressives throttling their opinions: “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”

Meta's Content Moderation Turnabout by Roger Pielke Jur. for The Honest Broker

A Lesson From 1930s Germany: Beware State Control of Social Media By Heidi Tworek for The Atlantic

The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech--by Kimberley Strassel, especially Chapter 2, “Publius & Co.”

HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship by Nadine Strossen 

Meta Makes Major Moves to Advance Free Expression on Its Platforms By David Inserra