But … I Mean Well

So, this is what we’ve come down to: an express “lesser evil” argument? Biden’s official response to his flagging debate performance was in essence: I’m old … slow … and feeble(minded).

However, Biden promises to be the savior of “democracy,” as if that form of government is sacrosanct. Should he succeed, that benefits whom?

There are tens of millions, who are certain to be disadvantaged by Biden’s democracy. There are tens of millions, whom a leftward-lurching Democratic Party deems “unworthy” or “excessively privileged.” Those disfavored individuals and groups will be designated targets for “reform,” and those targets should expect concerted efforts to disgorge from them private property and wealth. Might we expect those voters to capitulate and to submit themselves to the will of a self-serving collective?

As to those fortunate enough to find themselves within a fluid and temporal electoral majority, democracy may seem ideal (for the moment). As to a disfavored minority, democracy is indistinguishable from mob rule. We should remember that each of us is certain to be included at some point among the minority as to some issue. Might current proponents of majority rule then be equally adamant in their support?

Should one find himself the target of tyranny, it likely matters little whether his harms come at the hands of a single deranged despot or at the behest of a self-serving electoral majority.

Government in any form is at best a necessary evil. There is not a single instance of the word “democracy” within the Constitution in any form or derivation. That omission was not the result of oversight or happenstance. Having just won independence, the Founding Fathers of course were wary of monarchy, but they had no greater affinity for democracy. Rather than designing a government, which could act with industrial efficiency, they outlined a federal government of limited and specifically enumerated powers, which necessarily deferred to individual liberty and personal freedom via the Bill of Rights.

Democracy does not naturally afford such deference. If unrestrained, government of any description or incarnation is ultimately abusive, oppressive, and tyrannical. In fact, democracy may be the most insidious and potentially dangerous of all forms of government because its proponents and would-be beneficiaries act with a perverse moral certitude, which they mistakenly believe can be derived solely from their number.

Therefore, democracy is overrated, and those whose polestar includes “saving ‘our’ democracy” no matter the costs or consequences are neither prophet nor messiah. They are almost without exception charlatans and power mongers. Political minions and technocrats crave vicarious power, and they covet the position prestige and profit to be derived therefrom. They are indistinguishable from warmongers and profiteers.

Why should we accept this as a “best case” from either legacy political party? Why should the electorate be limited to unpalatable choices and confined to binary thinking? Biden put himself in this situation. The legacy parties share blame as well. So, why might we expect them to fix problems, which are specifically and conspicuously of their own creation?

What SHOULD we expect? We should expect persons to act — thus vote — consistent with their perceived self-interests. To expect or command them to act contrary to their own interests is to expect them to act inconsistent with the inherent nature of our species. Like nearly all organisms, human beings are motivated by self-protection, self-advancement, and self-propagation.

Persons will vote either for the person or party, which they believe will advance their personal interests or which they believe will do less harm to those interests. Therefore, a “lesser evil” argument may be effective, but one must understand that when, parties are forced to a choice between relative evils, one’s choice of a “lesser evil” is entirely subjective:

MY lying, morally fluid, and narcissistic egomaniac is better than YOUR lying, morally fluid, and narcissistic egomaniac, because mine does for ME and mine as opposed to YOU and yours.