Wednesday, March 7, 2018

The Democratic Farce, A Personal Account

Yesterday was the nation's first primary, right here in the state of Texas. This is not usually the sort of thing I bother with but many have argued that local elections are the most important of all and, regardless of that, I had a cousin on the ballot who would be very cross if I didn't drag my bones to town and vote for him (he's bigger than me). So, I went to town, marched into the parish hall and voted in the Democrat primary. They "warn" you on the ballot that you must be a registered Democrat to do this and are not allowed to vote in any other primaries (meaning the Republican one). You may have already noticed the first absurdity in this farce we call the democratic process. Why on earth would someone as radical-far-right-wing reactionary as yours truly be voting for the most leftist of the "two" American political parties? The short answer is; because they are the only game in town. The longer answer is; because demographics have consequences, even more than elections as it turns out. If you want democracy, these are the facts you are going to have to deal with.

Even in the supposedly "deep red" state of Texas, which everyone regards as a bastion of conservatism, pretty much all the urban areas are solidly Democrat and pretty much anywhere up to and including 100 miles of the Mexican border is also solidly Democrat and I would fall deep within that particular area. Because of the demographics of where I live, the vast majority of the population votes Democrat in every election, no matter what the circumstances are, no matter who is on the ballot. This has been the case for so long that the Republicans do not even bother to run candidates anywhere near where I live as it would simply be a waste of resources. This area is lost to them, they know it and they know it is not coming back. Because of this, you also have to be a Democrat in order to run for local office and appear on the ballot. This applies to my cousin who had to run as a Democrat despite being to the right of Rush Limbaugh. If you're not a Democrat, don't even bother trying. So, where I live, thanks to demographics, you have the "freedom" to vote for the Democrat...or the Democrat when it comes to local elections.

For anyone in an area such as this, who is a typical American conservative, it means you will be allowed no part in choosing who the candidate should be for the party you are certain to be voting for in the general election. This actually annoyed me somewhat this time as I would've liked to vote against George P. Bush just to be on the record about that, however, I could only vote for who is Democrat opponent will be and because of the demographics where I live that vote will count for absolutely nothing as it will be a proverbial drop in the bucket, a single grain of sand on the shore. I should probably also point out that the vast majority of Democrats on the ballot, again, because of the demographics of the area, had no opposition. They were not running against anyone, so it was really a waste of paper at the very least. For those keeping score, that means that you have a "choice" of only one party and a "choice" of only one candidate. I suppose those leftist protesters who are always chanting, "This is what democracy looks like!" might have a point, because what goes on at the polls in my area certainly doesn't look like democracy. The damning thing about the entire liberal model is that none of this is out of order, it is all perfectly legal.

Being well acquainted with this farce, I long ago stopped taking any of this seriously. The liberal model is supposed to be well-informed voters making sober decisions based on the merits of the candidates and their own rational self-interest. Human nature, however, doesn't work that way and so you get what we have in south Texas which is tribal voting. And who can say it shouldn't be? With a "choice" between candidates that each belong to a party I despise, neither of whom, in most cases, I know anything about and do not care to, why not simply vote for the name that sounds most similar to my own? You cannot realistically say you expect otherwise. Deep down, everyone knows this I think. Imagine, for example, a voter in southern California who is a Vietnamese-American. The candidates on the ballot are:
   - Alfredo Gutierrez
   - Pedro Ramirez
   - Juan Gonzales
   - Nguyen Van Sam
   - Alberto Garcia
Do you really think there is much doubt about which one he is most likely to vote for? It is a farce, a farce designed to fool people into thinking they have greater control over the government than they would with, oh, say, a king for example. After all, where I live, as you can see, demographics make all the difference and that demographic change was one which neither myself nor any previous generation here was ever asked to vote on. That, I think, says it all.


  1. I’ve been studying the “American Revolution”, it’s war and political aftermath for as long as I could read. The Founders strictly wanted a “republican” style of government, where only the free, white landholding males of upstanding moral character were allowed to vote. In esscence, ironically perhaps, the new aristocracy of the new nation.

    This should not be described as democracy. Democracy is the rule of ravenous wolves. The founders knew that the system could possibly degenerate into soap-box, rabble rousing tomfoolery on the federal level, in which case, individual states were set up with their own powers. It was thought that the more local you get with government, the more it represented the ideals of the voter. This was the debate during the civil war too; how much legitimacy do the states have that the Washington bureaucracy doesn’t, or shouldn’t? That issue was unfortunately settled with industrial scale force of arms in what I call the first “modern war”, our civil war.

    Of course with traditional monarchy the issue of demographics would neve depardize the National interests. A king is the oak rooted in the ground of his subjects. He simply IS the nation, and the nation is him. That is something very difficult to manipulate to the hoardes of the masses hell bent on overthrowing the legitimate heart of a healthy nation.

    Long gone are the times when perhaps voting in these farces may have even been remotely considered “noble”. You give a man who holds no land the “right” to vote, then what is the next natural step? Is it not hypocritcal to justify whether the next poor sod can vote too? How about the illiterate non landowners? Then the newly freed slaves? Then women? Then Mexicans?

    No one is supposed to be questioning this at this point because the media and schools jam this drivel down the throats of every public schooled child in America. Throw in open borders and dramatic demographic shifts, and this is what you get.

    1. The problem, though, even with the Founders was their starting point in liberalism which is a fraud. You can see that they half-way understood this even by pointing out that their system could not work without a moral, informed, public yet they cut it off from any basis for morality. That this should be obvious is that the very men who wrote the fine words about liberty for all, about equality and freedom of speech etc, within their own lifetime, tried to throttle their adversaries with state power and so on. The foundation in a sort of contract rather than an objective set of values was bound to come to where it is today.

  2. So, is it safe to assume that there are no remaining conservative democrats in your state? I mean Texas was democratic for most of its history, but it seems that most of the conservatives there have shifted over to the GOP. Also, I'm curious, I don't know if you have addressed it, but what is your opinion of Stephen Fuller Austin from a monarchist perspective?

    1. Not many certainly. Texas Democrats have tended to be more conservative than California or New York Democrats to be sure but while there are still some in the rural districts, the urban districts (Houston, Austin) are as radically leftist as one can be and they increasingly hold power as they are the most active whereas the, let us say "ethnic Democrats" are content to simply vote for the Democrat put before them no matter who it is.

      As for Austin, I don't suppose I have had much reason to consider him in that way as he never really had anything to do with any monarchy.

    2. Mad Monarchist, I do not know if you can help me or if you might reply to this message. But I am an individual with monarchist sympathies that has made me desire some advice on how to advocate such a platform on the monarchy and how it can be a better system than the so called “democratic” systems the modern age. I also would like to emphasis that I have, unfortunately, an anxiety prone disposition that causes me to feel nervous when I wish I could arrive to the defense of monarchy whether it be in the comments section on YouTube or any other social media outlet. There is, sadly, a lot of abuse being hurled at the remaining institutions of monarchy that has me worried that such messages may someday find a political voice in a movement to eradicate the monarchies of the world. I do apologize for the length of my message and I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and opinions on the content of my message. Take care good sir.

  3. What about non-republicans who live in deep red areas? Are they not disenfranchised?

    1. No, nor am I. The whole article revolved around my going to vote, so obviously I am not disenfranchised. The point is that the whole system is ridiculous, not that I am not allowed to vote. I can vote. I can vote for a Democrat or a Democrat. Similarly, a Democrat in a deep red area could vote for a Republican or a Republican, in local elections and more broadly, his or her vote would be just as meaningless as mine.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...