Liberal secular parliamentary democracy is an absolute necessity for the UK and USA.
And I wholeheartedly condemn, without qualification, the kind of arrogant and hubristic critique that strays from criticizing how the political systems of these countries operate in terms of their results, and ends up criticizing the legitimacy of liberal secular parliamentary democracy itself.
No-one has found a better, i.e. less imperfect system for the UK or USA than liberal secular parliamentary democracy, and I doubt anyone ever will.
Hence, it must be preserved, because no-one is entitled to ‘fly blind’ on behalf of others, with or without the guidance of a papier mâché Owl of Minerva, of their own benighted invention.
Without democratic consensus, legitimacy is impossible.
But unsurprisingly, revolutionaries are always hypocrites.
Yes. It is found throughout history that those who advocate revolution are the first to roar in fury or weep in dismay when (as is often plausibly and heartwarmingly predictable) they are the first to the wall.
For, no dictator wants to rule a country where there exists a large body of puffed-up, arrogant intellectuals with ideas above their station and weighty ambitions incommensurate with their meagre character and talent.
This is why Stalin did to Bukharin what Bukharin wanted to do to Stalin and all his other ‘rivals.’ To wit, his mortal enemies.
There was no ‘golden opportunity’ for a less wickedly depraved Evil Empire missed here when Bukharin was executed in an absolutely unjust act…
An absolutely unjust act that, in a perversely contradictory manner, was also absolutely ‘just;’ insofar as Stalin merely drew first against his gun-toting adversary, a worthless oxygen bandit who would no doubt have oppressed the Russians and their subject nations every bit as much as good old Uncle Joe!
Hindsight is rather misleading for some people.
And this is not, in any case, how debates should be settled.
Checks and balances are of more ethical weight than the wisdom of ‘the Wise.’
The distinction between criticizing the faults of a democracy and criticizing democracy is fundamental, and there is no excuse possible for ever trivializing its importance. There are grey areas and room for debate about what democracy is, has been and can be; there is room for debate about what it could or should be.
But there are non-negotiable fundamentals which, squirm and wriggle as you will, you will not be able to deny.
The impossibility of clearly defining democracy with absolute clarity is no excuse for opposing freedom.
Semantic murkiness needn’t lead to hazy morals.
Are you for or against?
I’m not asking you if you are for or against the government.
You can hate military interventionism, you can hate cronyism, you can hate the discriminatory policies and hateful rhetoric for which some politicians, even if they be politicians in democracies, are responsible.
But if you think you can do better than having a serious electoral system, universal suffrage, equality before the law, constitutional checks and balances, however imperfectly carried out, then you are a fool.
And you deserve every last whack and blow of all the unhappiness that an perfectly barbaric dictatorship, rather than an imperfectly free and equal democracy, could ever possibly wish to inflict upon you.
This is personal.
The personal is political.
And if you don’t appreciate the little imperfect freedom and equality we do have in the UK, USA or elsewhere, don’t expect me to respect you.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian Dominionist, a political Islamist, a fascist or a sexually frustrated Trotskyite student radical, insofar as there’s a difference between all these.
A little freedom that you can build upon and foster over time is better than infinite freedom at the cost of the very abolition of freedom.
This foolish path you are taking: deep down in your heart, you know it’s wrong.
And you know you’re better than that!
Get a grip.
Loosely based on a piece on Wallace Runnymede.