The Hijacking of Democracy
Democracy.
In its shortest definition, it is government by the majority rule of the people.
While it sounds good, it is also a messy form of government because in a true democracy everyone votes on every law. There are no protections of those in minorities. It is the rule of the majority.
We like the idea of the rule of the people, and so we push the idea of democracy.
But, America's founding fathers also knew the dangers of a democracy. So they set up a representative form of government, based on democracy, with elected representatives and an elected president. So, the United States of America is not a true democracy, it is a republic. More current definitions may clarify that it is a representative democracy.
The founding fathers knew the dangers of a strictly representative democracy and a true democracy.
In a representative form of government it could become easy for representatives to not vote for the people, and the enacted laws could benefit a few. Certainly the people could elect new representatives, but that would usually have to wait for the next election cycle.
In a true democracy, the rule of the majority could severely affect the rights of those in minorities. This could essentially legalize discrimination, bigotry, and hate just because someone's opinion, religion, ethnic background, etc. did not match the majority view. In essence the voice of the minority is silenced.
What the US received for its government was something very different. A representative government with various checks and balances. Three distinct branches of government with differing powers and responsibilities.
But one of the interesting features is the dual representative model. Our representative government incorporates aspects of both a simple representative democracy and a true democracy in its representatives.
The House of Representatives gives every state a certain number of elected representatives based on the state's population. The more people in the state, the more representatives they get. However, if the Congress was limited to this then those states with more people would have greater control.
In order to give every state a more equal representation, another house of Congress was also established. The Senate gives every state, no matter their population, an equal representation with two Senators each. Interestingly Senators serve for 6 year terms, while members of the House of Representatives only serve for two year terms.
Too many Americans do not understand the delicate balance that was established. Too many Americans (particularly Democrats in populous states) think we need to go to a majority rule voting whenever they don't get their way--like in the last presidential election where Trump got elected, despite majority popular votes for Clinton in very populous states like New York and California.
But these people forget that many of their "minority" rights would never have passed a true democracy vote. It is only because of the combined representative system that the rights of minorities do get protected, and (unfortunately) other supposed "rights" get passed (such as the passing of same-sex marriage).
Democracies are being hijacked. More specifically the unique democracy/republic of the U.S. is getting highjacked.
I remember when I turned 18 (in the early 1990's) and was going to register to vote. My dad talked to me about what party I might consider registering for. He told me there was two main parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Before this time, I don't remember much discussion in our home about politics or political parties. Other than voting, I don't recall my parents ever being very politically active.
Being fairly naive about politics at that time, and knowing we value our "democracy", I told my dad I wanted to register as a Democrat. I didn't know what a "Republican" was or what it meant, but "Democrat" certainly sounded closer to supporting democracy.
Dad looked at me and then took the time to patiently explain some of the key differences between the two parties. After learning some of the differences, I decided the Democrats did not value the same things I did, and that the Republicans had views that more closely matched mine. And I then learned my parents were both Republicans.
In the over 20 years since that time, I've become a bit more informed. And I've seen that the Democrats have gone even further to the left.
At the time I was beginning to become aware of politics. Liberals were associated with Democrat policies and agendas, but they weren't as entrenched in the party. Now liberal and Democrat are essentially the same.
But the label "liberal" isn't necessarily bad. When the Republican party was created, back in the time of Lincoln, it was considered "liberal". They were the ones advocating for abolishing slavery, and giving rights to every citizen.
The problem is "liberal" has now become more synonymous with socialism.
Socialism has its basis in equal distribution and control of economic and social systems. Often it's described as being controlled by the people, similar to a democracy, but that is where the similarity ends. The reality is in a socialist government it isn't the people who control the system, it is the government. Even in a supposed socialist "democracy" where politicians are elected the system is rigged so the people have very little voice in the government.
Here's an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times called Why Are So Many Democracies Breaking Down?, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/democracy-authoritarian-constitutions.html
Most "democracies" that have been established have been after an authoritarian regime, and the constitutions and laws were established to protect those who were (and are) in power. Basically in these democracies the political deck is stacked against the people. The people have very little power.
The idea of socialism is attractive, equal distribution of wealth and social systems. The idea of equalizing wealth is a noble one, and those of us who have grown up with little would like to have more. Politicians know how to stoke this fiscal inequality, and they effectively use it to fan the flames of their supporters.
The problem is those supporting socialism believe the government is the best way to implement this equality. This goes for both the politicians and their constituents.
Many of those in political power like the idea of socialism. They like the idea of the government having more power and control over the people. They like the idea of telling the people they will get free education, free health care, equal economic opportunities, etc. But these "equal" opportunities come at a high economic cost, a loss of liberties (as more areas of life become regulated and controlled), and more corruption as those in power manipulate the system to remain in power and gain more wealth.
In America, the Democrats have been hijacked by the socialists. While the Democrats have always pushed for more government, more government programs, more government control and regulation, the socialists have added to this as they push for reductions, limitations, regulations, controls, or the elimination of Constitutional freedoms. The socialists push for societal changes which will end up making the people more dependent on the government, and those in power.
But most Democrats don't realize the extreme cost of socialism. They don't understand the threads of control that are being weaved and forged into chains that will bind and essentially enslave them. Those in power understand. They want the people to be dependent on the the government. If they can get the majority to become addicted to the handouts, freebies, and illusions of protection that are offered then those people will not want a change. They will enjoy their enslavement and dependence.
I wonder how many young Democrats actually understand what they are supporting?
How many of them have bought into the political talking points of the socialists? How many believe in the idealism, but are naive about the realities?
Oh, and just to be clear...the Republicans aren't always right either.
While the Democrats tend to push for more government, Republicans tend to push for more law enforcement and military. While I fully support our military and law enforcement is necessary (and a chief role of government), my concern is the enactment of laws that give the military and law enforcement too broad of powers. A big example of this was the enactment of the Patriot Act under a Republican administration.
While I believe the Republican agenda is generally better for the country, both political parties want too much control and I am even wary of some of the laws proposed by Republicans.
And consider this, how often do the same legislators get re-elected? Why is it there are so few new senators or representatives elected? And, why is it so few of those are from the actual working class, or have had real experience representative of those they are elected to represent?
How many of those who are elected to Congress are either wealthy to begin with, or, somehow, become rich while "serving" in their elected capacity?
It's because the system has been rigged against the regular citizens. It is rare that someone without political clout, celebrity status, and/or a lot of money gets elected. These people can't afford to run for an election, and they usually have little chance of making it past a primary election, or even to be nominated by a political party to run in an election. It can even be argued that many of the laws and regulations that have been enacted over the last few decades have made people even more dependent on the government and those who have been elected.
This is partly why Trump being elected was such a surprise for so many. How he managed to get the Republican nomination is still debated, but he did. Then he managed to get the electoral votes for the presidency. Even after becoming president, and even after a few years, he still doesn't have the full support of the Republican party or the Republicans in Congress.
Personally, I don't think Trump is a great president. But, I think he is much better than Hilary Clinton. Under Clinton I believe we would have seen a greater erosion of Constitutional freedoms and much more involvement and regulations from government. Under Trump our freedoms are at least eroding less quickly. and the flurry of increased government involvement in the lives of citizens has been reduced.
But, I don't think this trend will continue when Republicans lose majority of both houses of Congress or when someone else is elected president.
I think the powers operating behind the scenes have been working to ensure they aren't surprised by an unexpected outcome on a national scale again.
This is not to say a Republican candidate would be better than a Democrat, particularly when it comes the eventual presidential campaign. I think the parties will field candidates who are more under the control of the party, and those who control the party. The exemption would be if Trump is the Republican candidate, which, at this point, he will be. But, if Trump were not to run for a second term the Republican candidate will be under strong party influence.
Both parties are hijacked by extremists. The question remains whether their eventual candidates will have similar extreme views or if they will be more moderate.
In any case, a year from now the presidential elections will really be heating up. There's a good chance the economy may even be on a stable, if not slightly upward, trend, although that will likely change by October 2020.
If the Democrats win the presidency and majorities in Congress--which they likely will if a Recession and stock market crash happen in October--then we won't hear much about how democracy has failed. We'll mostly hear reports and articles about how the voice of the people have voted for change and democracy worked. Of course the majority of the non-coastal states won't have supported the socialist movement, but that won't be discussed by the media in general.
But if a surprise happens, and a Republican president is elected, and even a Senate majority is maintained, we will hear reports about how the voice of the people and democracy failed, again, and the Constitution needs to be changed.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat majority in Congress and a Democrat president push to increase majority rule, an "every vote counts" movement to prevent something like Trump happening to the country again.
If that does happen, the minority voices will become suppressed. The voices supporting religious liberty, freedom of speech, the second amendment, and others will be deemed as threatening and needing to be controlled and censored to protect the rights and safety of the majority.
Unlike now, where the rights of minorities are protected, only those minorities that are in alignment with the liberal agenda will continue to receive protection. If the views, beliefs, or opinions of a minority group (or even an individual) are perceived, or even imagined, to infringe on the rights of the majority, or a "protected" minority group, then that group or individual will be silenced in one way or another.
But the system will only be a democracy in name only because instead of control being given to the people, power and control will be further consolidated into the hands of those in political power. And most of the people won't realize it because they will continue, for a time, to receive their free handouts.
I suspect that by then there will be a further cost with an increased invasion of the government into the lives of private citizens. Just as too many of us freely give up private data to companies in exchange for some convenience, those receiving any government assistance will be giving up their financial and personal privacy as they will be required to get registered with whatever government system is deemed necessary to "prevent fraud" and "increase security."
So instead of a democracy where the people rule, it will be an illusionary democracy where the people are ruled by those in political power. Much like the democracies mentioned in the New York Times article, the regulations and legislation enacted by those in power will further protect themselves, their power, and keep them in power longer.
As deficits become completely out of control, government handouts will be decreased, taxes will increase dramatically, and more people will start to realize they are living in a democracy-in-name-only (DINO) government, and they have very little power to change anything. Voting will do little to enact change, because in the DINO government the only real purpose of voting is to make people think they have power. Freedoms and liberties will have been eroded away and people will wonder how it happened. The liberal and socialist ideals that many saw as answers to societal problems will have become oppressive burdens of a socialist government. But by then it will be too late to change except by extreme means.
In our imperfect world, where mortal men govern, the Constitution and Republican form of government in the United States of America is really one of the fairest and best forms of government. It does more to protect the rights of minorities. It protects the freedoms and liberties what should be afforded to all. Is it a perfect government. No. But it's better than anything else that has ever been attempted.
As we move towards an election year, keep in mind that no candidate is perfect. But also keep in mind that our freedoms and liberties are increasing under attack. Protection, safety, equality will be used to promote and push new legislation, much of which will infringe upon Constitutional rights.
The only way to prevent our country from becoming a DINO is to ensure our Constitutional freedoms are not regulated or legislated away. Restoring those which have become infringed upon would be better, but in the very least we need to do what we can to prevent further erosion.
We need to make sure those who are elected into federal government positions will make decisions that are beneficial to the whole country, and not just high-population centers or to certain vocal minorities.
Is the electoral college a good system? It's not the best, but for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. the system is better than others. A popular vote would swing the votes towards high population states, like New York and California.. But if each state were given equal votes then the less populous states in the center of the country would have just as much say as the large population states.
The electoral college is based on the number of senators (two for each state) and number of those in the House of Representatives (which is determined by population) each state has. In essence the electoral system is a compromise between high population states and giving each state an equal vote.
The U.S. is not a true democracy and was never intended to be. The two house legislative body of Congress, and the electoral college, was the result of the Great Compromise. And that is what America is, a compromise that isn't designed to give any side all that they want but to reach a mutually acceptable position where all benefit.
This was mentioned earlier. It is because of the Constitution and the Great Compromise that minorities receive better protection (although more does need to be done) than they would in a true democracy.
Here's how the hijacking works.
It is unfortunate that increasing immorality (as an example the LGBTQ+ and same-sex marriage movement) and anti-Christian sentiment is becoming increasingly prevalent throughout our society. It is because the vocal minorities and proponents of immoral behaviors have increasingly garnered greater public attention, and have managed to gain protection for their "rights" to teach and promote their immorality on the public stage, while also casting blame on the religious.
And as they gain greater political influence and power, they will increasingly seek for more "democratic" control because they know in a majority rule they will better be able to squelch minority voices. One of those voices is from the supporters of religious freedoms.
As fewer Americans consider themselves religious, and Christian extremists are demonized more than Islamic extremists in the media, the Christian voice in America is become more of a minority.
When a minority view becomes threatening to the majority, that minority, in a democracy, can be more effectively restricted or eliminated for the good of, and protection of, the majority.
Once majority rule is more accepted, then those in power can work and manipulate the majority to convince them of the need to enact regulations and legislation that will further protect the rights, safety, protection, and "public good" of the majority. Among these legislative actions will be inclusions that will protect the power of politicians, and make it harder for the people to change the system back.
Before long, those elected to positions of power have become like royalty or nobility, and it becomes unlikely that someone from a lower social class would have a chance to every get into a position of political power.
In its shortest definition, it is government by the majority rule of the people.
While it sounds good, it is also a messy form of government because in a true democracy everyone votes on every law. There are no protections of those in minorities. It is the rule of the majority.
We like the idea of the rule of the people, and so we push the idea of democracy.
But, America's founding fathers also knew the dangers of a democracy. So they set up a representative form of government, based on democracy, with elected representatives and an elected president. So, the United States of America is not a true democracy, it is a republic. More current definitions may clarify that it is a representative democracy.
The founding fathers knew the dangers of a strictly representative democracy and a true democracy.
In a representative form of government it could become easy for representatives to not vote for the people, and the enacted laws could benefit a few. Certainly the people could elect new representatives, but that would usually have to wait for the next election cycle.
In a true democracy, the rule of the majority could severely affect the rights of those in minorities. This could essentially legalize discrimination, bigotry, and hate just because someone's opinion, religion, ethnic background, etc. did not match the majority view. In essence the voice of the minority is silenced.
What the US received for its government was something very different. A representative government with various checks and balances. Three distinct branches of government with differing powers and responsibilities.
But one of the interesting features is the dual representative model. Our representative government incorporates aspects of both a simple representative democracy and a true democracy in its representatives.
The House of Representatives gives every state a certain number of elected representatives based on the state's population. The more people in the state, the more representatives they get. However, if the Congress was limited to this then those states with more people would have greater control.
In order to give every state a more equal representation, another house of Congress was also established. The Senate gives every state, no matter their population, an equal representation with two Senators each. Interestingly Senators serve for 6 year terms, while members of the House of Representatives only serve for two year terms.
Too many Americans do not understand the delicate balance that was established. Too many Americans (particularly Democrats in populous states) think we need to go to a majority rule voting whenever they don't get their way--like in the last presidential election where Trump got elected, despite majority popular votes for Clinton in very populous states like New York and California.
But these people forget that many of their "minority" rights would never have passed a true democracy vote. It is only because of the combined representative system that the rights of minorities do get protected, and (unfortunately) other supposed "rights" get passed (such as the passing of same-sex marriage).
Democracies are being hijacked. More specifically the unique democracy/republic of the U.S. is getting highjacked.
I remember when I turned 18 (in the early 1990's) and was going to register to vote. My dad talked to me about what party I might consider registering for. He told me there was two main parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Before this time, I don't remember much discussion in our home about politics or political parties. Other than voting, I don't recall my parents ever being very politically active.
Being fairly naive about politics at that time, and knowing we value our "democracy", I told my dad I wanted to register as a Democrat. I didn't know what a "Republican" was or what it meant, but "Democrat" certainly sounded closer to supporting democracy.
Dad looked at me and then took the time to patiently explain some of the key differences between the two parties. After learning some of the differences, I decided the Democrats did not value the same things I did, and that the Republicans had views that more closely matched mine. And I then learned my parents were both Republicans.
In the over 20 years since that time, I've become a bit more informed. And I've seen that the Democrats have gone even further to the left.
At the time I was beginning to become aware of politics. Liberals were associated with Democrat policies and agendas, but they weren't as entrenched in the party. Now liberal and Democrat are essentially the same.
But the label "liberal" isn't necessarily bad. When the Republican party was created, back in the time of Lincoln, it was considered "liberal". They were the ones advocating for abolishing slavery, and giving rights to every citizen.
The problem is "liberal" has now become more synonymous with socialism.
Socialism has its basis in equal distribution and control of economic and social systems. Often it's described as being controlled by the people, similar to a democracy, but that is where the similarity ends. The reality is in a socialist government it isn't the people who control the system, it is the government. Even in a supposed socialist "democracy" where politicians are elected the system is rigged so the people have very little voice in the government.
Here's an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times called Why Are So Many Democracies Breaking Down?, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/democracy-authoritarian-constitutions.html
Most "democracies" that have been established have been after an authoritarian regime, and the constitutions and laws were established to protect those who were (and are) in power. Basically in these democracies the political deck is stacked against the people. The people have very little power.
The idea of socialism is attractive, equal distribution of wealth and social systems. The idea of equalizing wealth is a noble one, and those of us who have grown up with little would like to have more. Politicians know how to stoke this fiscal inequality, and they effectively use it to fan the flames of their supporters.
The problem is those supporting socialism believe the government is the best way to implement this equality. This goes for both the politicians and their constituents.
Many of those in political power like the idea of socialism. They like the idea of the government having more power and control over the people. They like the idea of telling the people they will get free education, free health care, equal economic opportunities, etc. But these "equal" opportunities come at a high economic cost, a loss of liberties (as more areas of life become regulated and controlled), and more corruption as those in power manipulate the system to remain in power and gain more wealth.
In America, the Democrats have been hijacked by the socialists. While the Democrats have always pushed for more government, more government programs, more government control and regulation, the socialists have added to this as they push for reductions, limitations, regulations, controls, or the elimination of Constitutional freedoms. The socialists push for societal changes which will end up making the people more dependent on the government, and those in power.
But most Democrats don't realize the extreme cost of socialism. They don't understand the threads of control that are being weaved and forged into chains that will bind and essentially enslave them. Those in power understand. They want the people to be dependent on the the government. If they can get the majority to become addicted to the handouts, freebies, and illusions of protection that are offered then those people will not want a change. They will enjoy their enslavement and dependence.
I wonder how many young Democrats actually understand what they are supporting?
How many of them have bought into the political talking points of the socialists? How many believe in the idealism, but are naive about the realities?
Oh, and just to be clear...the Republicans aren't always right either.
While the Democrats tend to push for more government, Republicans tend to push for more law enforcement and military. While I fully support our military and law enforcement is necessary (and a chief role of government), my concern is the enactment of laws that give the military and law enforcement too broad of powers. A big example of this was the enactment of the Patriot Act under a Republican administration.
While I believe the Republican agenda is generally better for the country, both political parties want too much control and I am even wary of some of the laws proposed by Republicans.
And consider this, how often do the same legislators get re-elected? Why is it there are so few new senators or representatives elected? And, why is it so few of those are from the actual working class, or have had real experience representative of those they are elected to represent?
How many of those who are elected to Congress are either wealthy to begin with, or, somehow, become rich while "serving" in their elected capacity?
It's because the system has been rigged against the regular citizens. It is rare that someone without political clout, celebrity status, and/or a lot of money gets elected. These people can't afford to run for an election, and they usually have little chance of making it past a primary election, or even to be nominated by a political party to run in an election. It can even be argued that many of the laws and regulations that have been enacted over the last few decades have made people even more dependent on the government and those who have been elected.
This is partly why Trump being elected was such a surprise for so many. How he managed to get the Republican nomination is still debated, but he did. Then he managed to get the electoral votes for the presidency. Even after becoming president, and even after a few years, he still doesn't have the full support of the Republican party or the Republicans in Congress.
Personally, I don't think Trump is a great president. But, I think he is much better than Hilary Clinton. Under Clinton I believe we would have seen a greater erosion of Constitutional freedoms and much more involvement and regulations from government. Under Trump our freedoms are at least eroding less quickly. and the flurry of increased government involvement in the lives of citizens has been reduced.
But, I don't think this trend will continue when Republicans lose majority of both houses of Congress or when someone else is elected president.
I think the powers operating behind the scenes have been working to ensure they aren't surprised by an unexpected outcome on a national scale again.
This is not to say a Republican candidate would be better than a Democrat, particularly when it comes the eventual presidential campaign. I think the parties will field candidates who are more under the control of the party, and those who control the party. The exemption would be if Trump is the Republican candidate, which, at this point, he will be. But, if Trump were not to run for a second term the Republican candidate will be under strong party influence.
Both parties are hijacked by extremists. The question remains whether their eventual candidates will have similar extreme views or if they will be more moderate.
In any case, a year from now the presidential elections will really be heating up. There's a good chance the economy may even be on a stable, if not slightly upward, trend, although that will likely change by October 2020.
If the Democrats win the presidency and majorities in Congress--which they likely will if a Recession and stock market crash happen in October--then we won't hear much about how democracy has failed. We'll mostly hear reports and articles about how the voice of the people have voted for change and democracy worked. Of course the majority of the non-coastal states won't have supported the socialist movement, but that won't be discussed by the media in general.
But if a surprise happens, and a Republican president is elected, and even a Senate majority is maintained, we will hear reports about how the voice of the people and democracy failed, again, and the Constitution needs to be changed.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat majority in Congress and a Democrat president push to increase majority rule, an "every vote counts" movement to prevent something like Trump happening to the country again.
If that does happen, the minority voices will become suppressed. The voices supporting religious liberty, freedom of speech, the second amendment, and others will be deemed as threatening and needing to be controlled and censored to protect the rights and safety of the majority.
Unlike now, where the rights of minorities are protected, only those minorities that are in alignment with the liberal agenda will continue to receive protection. If the views, beliefs, or opinions of a minority group (or even an individual) are perceived, or even imagined, to infringe on the rights of the majority, or a "protected" minority group, then that group or individual will be silenced in one way or another.
But the system will only be a democracy in name only because instead of control being given to the people, power and control will be further consolidated into the hands of those in political power. And most of the people won't realize it because they will continue, for a time, to receive their free handouts.
I suspect that by then there will be a further cost with an increased invasion of the government into the lives of private citizens. Just as too many of us freely give up private data to companies in exchange for some convenience, those receiving any government assistance will be giving up their financial and personal privacy as they will be required to get registered with whatever government system is deemed necessary to "prevent fraud" and "increase security."
So instead of a democracy where the people rule, it will be an illusionary democracy where the people are ruled by those in political power. Much like the democracies mentioned in the New York Times article, the regulations and legislation enacted by those in power will further protect themselves, their power, and keep them in power longer.
As deficits become completely out of control, government handouts will be decreased, taxes will increase dramatically, and more people will start to realize they are living in a democracy-in-name-only (DINO) government, and they have very little power to change anything. Voting will do little to enact change, because in the DINO government the only real purpose of voting is to make people think they have power. Freedoms and liberties will have been eroded away and people will wonder how it happened. The liberal and socialist ideals that many saw as answers to societal problems will have become oppressive burdens of a socialist government. But by then it will be too late to change except by extreme means.
In our imperfect world, where mortal men govern, the Constitution and Republican form of government in the United States of America is really one of the fairest and best forms of government. It does more to protect the rights of minorities. It protects the freedoms and liberties what should be afforded to all. Is it a perfect government. No. But it's better than anything else that has ever been attempted.
As we move towards an election year, keep in mind that no candidate is perfect. But also keep in mind that our freedoms and liberties are increasing under attack. Protection, safety, equality will be used to promote and push new legislation, much of which will infringe upon Constitutional rights.
The only way to prevent our country from becoming a DINO is to ensure our Constitutional freedoms are not regulated or legislated away. Restoring those which have become infringed upon would be better, but in the very least we need to do what we can to prevent further erosion.
We need to make sure those who are elected into federal government positions will make decisions that are beneficial to the whole country, and not just high-population centers or to certain vocal minorities.
Is the electoral college a good system? It's not the best, but for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. the system is better than others. A popular vote would swing the votes towards high population states, like New York and California.. But if each state were given equal votes then the less populous states in the center of the country would have just as much say as the large population states.
The electoral college is based on the number of senators (two for each state) and number of those in the House of Representatives (which is determined by population) each state has. In essence the electoral system is a compromise between high population states and giving each state an equal vote.
The U.S. is not a true democracy and was never intended to be. The two house legislative body of Congress, and the electoral college, was the result of the Great Compromise. And that is what America is, a compromise that isn't designed to give any side all that they want but to reach a mutually acceptable position where all benefit.
This was mentioned earlier. It is because of the Constitution and the Great Compromise that minorities receive better protection (although more does need to be done) than they would in a true democracy.
Here's how the hijacking works.
It is unfortunate that increasing immorality (as an example the LGBTQ+ and same-sex marriage movement) and anti-Christian sentiment is becoming increasingly prevalent throughout our society. It is because the vocal minorities and proponents of immoral behaviors have increasingly garnered greater public attention, and have managed to gain protection for their "rights" to teach and promote their immorality on the public stage, while also casting blame on the religious.
And as they gain greater political influence and power, they will increasingly seek for more "democratic" control because they know in a majority rule they will better be able to squelch minority voices. One of those voices is from the supporters of religious freedoms.
As fewer Americans consider themselves religious, and Christian extremists are demonized more than Islamic extremists in the media, the Christian voice in America is become more of a minority.
When a minority view becomes threatening to the majority, that minority, in a democracy, can be more effectively restricted or eliminated for the good of, and protection of, the majority.
Once majority rule is more accepted, then those in power can work and manipulate the majority to convince them of the need to enact regulations and legislation that will further protect the rights, safety, protection, and "public good" of the majority. Among these legislative actions will be inclusions that will protect the power of politicians, and make it harder for the people to change the system back.
Before long, those elected to positions of power have become like royalty or nobility, and it becomes unlikely that someone from a lower social class would have a chance to every get into a position of political power.
Comments
Post a Comment