Category Archives: Political Philosophy

Update II: The Din For Democracy

Affirmative Action, Democracy, IMMIGRATION, Iraq, Multiculturalism, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, South-Africa

After visiting South Africa, Eli Kedourie, “noted student of nationalism,” wrote in the South Africa International:

“If majority and minority are perpetual, then government ceases to have a mediatory or remedial function, and becomes an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by the majority. … The worst effects of the tyranny of the majority are seen when parliamentary government on the unalloyed Westminster model is introduced into countries divided by religion or language or race. Such for example was the case of Iraq … where an extremely heterogeneous society came to be endowed with constitutions which made no provision for diversity, and where the result was tyranny of one groups over the other groups in the society.”

Kedourie was not the only sensible scholar who pointed out the obvious. But that’s history—South Africa is history.

Why are such voices not heeded today? America’s make-up is changing. Through mass immigration, it too is moving toward becoming a racially and ethnically stratified country, in which democracy will be ever ruthlessly wielded as a weapon of the usurping majority. Yet the din for democracy grows among the conservative and neoconservative cadre.

From “Exporting Democracy”:

Political democracy on the other hand, is a “leftist” idea. Why? Because it inevitably leads to a massive consolidation of power, centralized especially in the national government.

Democracy, like leftism, is un-American. It is, in fact, a foreign pollutant that wafted over the Atlantic from the French Revolution. And like a wild weed, it took root in the republic’s soil, growing out of control.

Update I (July 2): The post addresses a specific aspect that makes democratic mass-society unworkable. The premise of Mr. Kraus, hereunder, is that all cultures are equally prone to the principles of the Enlightenment. Nothing a little show of Western pride won’t fix. I vehemently disagree. The historical population of America is becoming progressively more ignorant of the principles of freedom by the day. But dissolving the American people and electing another—which is what America’s centrally planned immigration policy aims at—will ensure freedom is never revived, as immigration policies privilege Third World immigrants. Please refer to my immigration archive. Democracy, for what it’s worth, works in small, relatively homogeneous societies, like Denmark (although that country too is becoming too riven by religious and racial strife to work).

Update II: Mr. Kraus, there is nothing “unorganized” about the “multicultural noise machine.” Identity politics is highly organized and emasculating. If the latest affirmative action case tells you anything it is that by nature, the Anglo-American WASP tends to go quietly into that good night. He is expected to so do. (In fact, others of their ilk on this blog have reprimanded Ricci for daring to seek redress, instead of doing what WASPS do; hunker down and get used to losing.)
Empires have been decimated by the barbarians from within and without. You can’t do much about your own barbarians, except try and educate them. But why import more?

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick 'A Bad Mistake'

Constitution, Law, Political Philosophy, The Courts

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’
By Barbara Grant

What does it mean, “to bork”? Readers too young to recall the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings on Robert Bork’s nomination as Supreme Court Justice might refer to this piece in which Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and calls her nomination a “bad mistake.”

To “bork” a nominee means to block him (or her) from appointment to public office. Bork avers that President Barack Obama’s standard of “empathy” in judge selection bodes ill for the selection of a justice who supports constitutional principles. He notes that “wise Latina” Sotomayor has less than a stellar record in her judicial opinions, and is in fact noted for bullying from the bench. However, he also offers that she will likely not be “any worse than some recent white male appointees.”

Bork calls himself an originalist, which means that he tries to interpret the Constitution in the manner it was drafted, at all times seeking first principles. This is different from the “judicial activism” principle currently held by many, in which justices twist the document to conform to preconceived political stances.

Robert Bork is adamantly opposed to twisting the Constitution; he also believes his opposition to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds was pivotal to his nomination’s rejection.

Where does the current trend toward “empathy” leave a highly principled man like Robert Bork? Still interested in the Constitution, but also wary of our justices’ decisions. “If you want to know what the constitution means, you will not learn it from the court,” he said.

BAB Contributor Barbara Grant is a consultant in electro-optical engineering and co-author of “The Art of Radiometry,” a forthcoming book on the measurement of light, to be published by SPIE PressB.

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’

Constitution, Law, Political Philosophy, The Courts

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’
By Barbara Grant

What does it mean, “to bork”? Readers too young to recall the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings on Robert Bork’s nomination as Supreme Court Justice might refer to this piece in which Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and calls her nomination a “bad mistake.”

To “bork” a nominee means to block him (or her) from appointment to public office. Bork avers that President Barack Obama’s standard of “empathy” in judge selection bodes ill for the selection of a justice who supports constitutional principles. He notes that “wise Latina” Sotomayor has less than a stellar record in her judicial opinions, and is in fact noted for bullying from the bench. However, he also offers that she will likely not be “any worse than some recent white male appointees.”

Bork calls himself an originalist, which means that he tries to interpret the Constitution in the manner it was drafted, at all times seeking first principles. This is different from the “judicial activism” principle currently held by many, in which justices twist the document to conform to preconceived political stances.

Robert Bork is adamantly opposed to twisting the Constitution; he also believes his opposition to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds was pivotal to his nomination’s rejection.

Where does the current trend toward “empathy” leave a highly principled man like Robert Bork? Still interested in the Constitution, but also wary of our justices’ decisions. “If you want to know what the constitution means, you will not learn it from the court,” he said.

BAB Contributor Barbara Grant is a consultant in electro-optical engineering and co-author of “The Art of Radiometry,” a forthcoming book on the measurement of light, to be published by SPIE PressB.

Libertarian ‘Idiocracy’ Rising

Intelligence, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Pop-Culture, Pseudo-intellectualism, The West, The Zeitgeist

Over the pixelated pages of Barely A Blog and IlanaMercer.com, I’ve devoted time and effort to elucidating where libertarianism has gone wrong. The sexy, rah-rah, fist-in-the air aura of anarchism has attracted the worst to the movement. My own readers are constantly seduced and pulled back, on BAB, from the brink of errant thinking—as when they fall into pacifism or social determinism.

Then there are the dumbing-down forces that have taken their toll on the Zeitgeist in general. In America, and elsewhere, we are in the throes of an era that elevates and celebrates the worst of humanity, man and woman; intellect and ethics. To get an exaggerated sense of what the consequences of such a persistent upheaval in the natural order, I recommend my all-time favorite social commentary, “Idiocracy.” Comedic reductio ad absurdum is better than the kind of social science-cum-social engineering produced these days by the likes of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam.

After that prelude, please take a look at what goes for gritty libertarian thought on the website of The Examiner: “Is cannibalism really wrong or just taboo?”

An intellectual pygmy and shock jock gets a forum. An even stupider editor believes musing about cannibalism is edgy and exciting. Your main deduction here as far as libertarianism goes must not involve libertarian legal theory. For the act of cannibalism should go unpunished only in extremis—where the individual would not survive unless he indulges.

Otherwise, a society that is reduced to the skeletal essence of the non-aggression axiom is not a civil society, but an “Idiocracy.” (Bless Mike Judge for that stroke of genius.)