Anthropologists will one day marvel at the divergent fields of inquiry between the right and left. Both sides as certain of their own dignified pursuits as they are the malice and triviality of their enemies. It must be a divine lark at some plane of consciousness to watch one side struggle to maintain their fathers’ civilization, while the other works with equal ardor to discern which of those fathers were contemptibly heteronormative.
With that in mind, it seems to be an exclusive exercise of the dissident right to question our contemporary forms and functions of government. If there is any wisdom more readily received than anti-white/anti-racism, it is the obligation to democracy and universal suffrage. Like practically all liberal imperatives, this notion is substantiated not by its results, but by its perceived moral propriety. And the fact that what we embrace as good has no meaningful correlation to what turns out well is a topic that goes resolutely unexplored.
While the national media waits for me to take that topic up at greater length in a subsequent post, I wanted to make a few observations about democracy and the philosophical eddies swirling around it in the alt-right.
Upon hearing criticisms of democracy and the solipsistic politicians and hand puppets it tends to elevate, my response is usually to wonder, “in lieu of what?” The question isn’t whether democracy is bad, the question is what’s better. Were Tony Blair and David Cameron worse than Prince Charles and his inert mother? Were GWB and Barrack Obama worse than an alternate aristocracy of Mark Zuckerberg and Michael Bloomberg? Would a military junta produce more felicitous results? A sultanate? A politburo? A kakistocracy? All of these questions are debatable, but they do require a response.
The truth is that every form of government is fundamentally a democracy. Different names are applied according to the shape and radius of the franchise. Even in historical hereditary monarchies, there were tacit votes of approval from the landed gentry. The entire exercise of government is not in conceiving its form, but in drawing the contours of who gets to decide. That’s where power and practicality reside.
In the sensibilities of modern American liberals, those deciding should be eighth generation black wards of the state and illiterate Guatemalan hedge trimmers. The right, in general contrast, believes quality of government is not proportional to the quantity of decision makers. In fact, that they are inversely proportional is likely the more accurate statement.
But whatever one’s stance on the positioning of democratic contours, it seems apparent they must be evaluated in light of competing interests to mitigate the influence of idiots, aliens, and resource siphons on one hand against self-serving cabals on the other. No careful man would willingly subject himself to the malign leadership selections of either a Detroit precinct or the Technology CEO Council. It is because of the continual emergence of the latter that I take a more expansive view of the franchise than some on the dissident right. Though far less expansive than any modern democracy.
As far as where I’d draw the contours, simply restricting the vote to federal income taxpayers would lop off 45% of the electorate, while rendering the left’s urban vote farms inoperative. America’s founders envisioned an electorate far narrower than that. I can’t honestly say that time has proved their parsimony imprudent. But I can say we should always think of our nation as an extended family and our country as an extended home.
Two rigid rules of the Porter household are that foreign squatters receive no room and reliant children receive no vote. You’d be amazed at how much these alone contribute to quality government and a harmonious habitat.