↓
 
Home » When is a democratic election not a democratic election?

When is a democratic election not a democratic election?

The New Neo Posted on by

When Democrats don’t like the results.

I guess Biden isn’t worried about upsetting our supposed ally Italy, either – see this recent Biden speech (which, by the way, also features a repeat of the Charlottesville “fine people” accusation, one of Biden’s favorite attacks on Trump, as well as this other favorite of Biden’s about January 6th, “ultimately several police officers dying as a consequence”).

Here’s the portion of the speech referring to Meloni’s election, democracy, and Xi:

Well, folks, you know — and I mean this sincerely; you’re going to think this is a little out of whack what I’m going to talk about — but, you know, democracy is at stake. Literally, there’s a — there’s a case being made around the world, not just here, because democracy and autocracy. And there’s an awful lot of folks who believe that democracies can’t be sustained in the 21st century because there’s — problems are so — so much is changing in science and technology, the environment, a whole range of things, that it’s awful hard to reach a consensus in the short amount of time you have to reach.

And so that’s why I have these constant arguments. So I’ve had — I’ve met with Xi Jinping over 78 hours, 68 of which are in person, over the last 10 years. And he makes the case straight up that democracies can’t be sustained in the 21st century.

You just saw what’s happened in Italy in that election. You’re seeing what’s happening around the world. And the reason I bother to say that is we can’t be sanguine about what’s happening here either. I don’t want to exaggerate it, but I don’t want to understate it. And it’s the reason why I’m so concerned about and so interested in and so committed to seeing that the governors — Democratic governors are elected. Because, literally, the outcome of an election is going to be determined by how well the governors run their states, who’s in charge at the time, whether or not things are going to be — how we count the votes, whether or not it’s transparent, and a whole range of things.

A whole range of things, indeed – including “how we count the votes.”

Comments

When is a democratic election not a democratic election? — 40 Comments

  1. because democracy and autocracy. And there’s an awful lot of folks who believe that democracies can’t be sustained in the 21st century because there’s –

    The guy’s nuts, but his handlers persist in him spouting off nonsense. ‘Counting the votes’, indeed. His party has invested a lot to tinker with that process.

  2. I’ve met with Xi Jinping over 78 hours, 68 of which are in person, over the last 10 years.

    Joe in his dementia state has no filter. The comment about China’s leader is curious, and Joe may think it is true or even agrees. The idea that he considers Xi’s opinion on ‘democracy’ as valid should have all Americans pause.

  3. It is only a democratic process when the person who wins is approved by the Faculty and Deans of the Ivy league schools.

  6. Sundowner pushing Marxism now because his Leftist handlers are pushing his buttons.
    Yeah is Democracy only when the Leftists win or can fraud the election for their advantage.

  7. “I guess Biden isn’t worried about upsetting our supposed ally Italy”
    Ally? I think you’ve misspelled “vassal”.
    Seriously though, with the Nordstream pipelines gone, Italy and Germany in particular and the EU in general are dependent on the US as a provider of emergency LNG …

  8. “Democracy” for Biden has more to do with the result than with the means or the process. When his side wins, it’s democratic. When it loses, it’s a threat to democracy.

    Biden is obviously not a Marxist, but his use of the word democracy” is similar to the way Marxists have used the word. “Democratic” means “progressive” or “in line with the forward march of humanity or arc of history,” not “in accord with what the majority of voters want.”

  10. David Foster,

    good article.

    We need to call out all censorship for the evil that it is. No exceptions. No excuses. There isn’t any possible moral basis for what the Biden administration has done. Or any of Big Tech or traditional media. Every time they ban, take down, cancel or place warnings based on political content, they are enabling evil. There aren’t any possible acceptable reasons.

  11. So, democracy is a threat if the wrong people are elected?

    Maybe I am remembering history wrong; but, isn’t that something that the actual fascists said back in the 1930s?

    As soon as Biden starts using the phrase “authoritarian democracy” then we will know that he is fully channeling fascists.

    Jeez, this guy and his supporters are truly frightening to me!

  12. Biden has more respect for a communist dictator, than he does for the freely-elected leader of an ally. Liberals are truly evil people.

  13. To pile on, why does an American President care what the Communist China Premier thinks about Democracy? Other than to gauge the threat of that particular premier. Otherwise, people are voting with their feet and families and moving from states governed by Democratic governors and to states with Republican governors, because they are better run.

  15. From David Foster’s link:
    “When you’re running a large organization, you’re not seeing reality. It’s like you’re watching a movie in which you get to see maybe one out of every thousand frames, and from that, you have to figure out what’s really going on.”

    *So* true. There is a whole industry just to shape what Congress sees.
    Few are the politicians that can see through the crap storm that is Washington DC.

  16. Why does an American President care what the Communist China Premier thinks about Democracy?

    From what Joe says, he and Xi are pretty tight and have been around the world a couple of times.

    “Autocracy” is a funny word. I thought we defeated that in 1918, and I’m wondering why we brought the word back. Is China really an autocracy? Is Iran? Is Brazil? Russia may be, though not as much as it has been at other times in its history. Syria probably is.

    But the word also (or primarily?) seems to be used to refer to elected populist rulers who try to get around entrenched bureaucracies. Continued control by bureaucracies and courtiers in the media, think tanks, foundations, NGOs, international organizations, corporations, financial institutions and political parties — in other words, something like oligarchy — seems to be what we are calling democracy and opposing to “autocracy.”

  17. Clearly, the recent plebiscite in the Donbas region for whether voters approved incorporation into Russia was an invalid democratic election. Right?

    8 years of daily shelling by the Ukraine government, laws against speaking their native language and now, a 5-10 ten year prison sentence (effectively a death sentence) for voting in the plebiscite are of course, illegitimate reasons for desiring a political separation from the Ukraine.

  18. I mean this sincerely; you’re going to think this is a little out of whack what I’m going to talk about

    This is called “A Tell.” He does this fairly often and it always mean he is lying.

  19. On a side note…

    “ You just saw what’s happened in Italy in that election.”

    One of the things I saw was that they knew who won within the space of 24hrs. I’m expecting to not have an answer that quickly in 24.

  20. I wish we could “like” comments here. If we could, Mike K, I would “like” your comment. My thoughts exactly re: “A Tell.”

    I’m not sure if this has been posted elsewhere on the site, but Matt Orfalea’s Youtube video showing a compilation of Democrat’s stolen election claims, needs to be watched/shared. Demonetized yesterday by Youtube, but re-monetized today (with an apology).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s

  21. Clearly, the recent plebiscite in the Donbas region for whether voters approved incorporation into Russia was an invalid democratic election. Right?

    You invest in stupid causes.

  22. Really? Pointing out hypocrisy is investing in a stupid cause?

    Of course they’re not the same thing, cause… you say so.

    Were it 1775, I wonder if you’d opine that supporting a separation from Britain is a stupid cause… especially if it takes making war against the most powerful country on earth.

  23. I want everybody to remember this when Geoffrey Britain claims they have never supported or confined Putin’s invasion.

    Clearly, the recent plebiscite in the Donbas region for whether voters approved incorporation into Russia was an invalid democratic election. Right?

    Right. Much like the Anschluss plebiscite of 1938 and the one to incorporate the Baltic Three into the USSR back in 1940.

    Firstly, it was nakedly illegitimate due to being conducted during a time of war, under occupation by a foreign force. We rightfully complained about the voter intimidation being conducted by the Black Panthers and how Obama’s cronies punted. But the Panthers had truncheons and other melee weapons more on par with the early SA; these are a conventional military and its reasonably well equipped paramilitary auxiliaries.

    And this is before I get into the utter lack of accountability and transparency, which in many ways make clearcut cases of fraud in places like Baltimore seem quaint.

    Secondly: it is also telling that Zelenskyy actually offered a plebiscite for the Donbas to be conducted as a means toward ending the war. Which indeed led to a fair amount of complaining from Ukrainian hawks, as you can see here in this English language Ukraine-focused Soros front.

    https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/05/29/zelenskyi-team-proposes-referendum-on-peace-deal-with-russia-heres-why-thats-a-problem/

    But this was contingent on a mutual demilitarization of the Donbas and internationally observed votes.

    Which the Kremlin never deigned to respond to. Precisely because it was not interested in an honest poll of who wanted to stay in Ukraine and who wanted to join the Rodina.

    8 years of daily shelling by the Ukraine government,

    … and by the Russian government, who if anything usually had an artillery advantage during the long Donbas war. Seriously, have people never seen Donetsk Airport and its environs circa 2015?

    Why do Kremlin apologists endlessly prattle on about Ukrainian shelling while “conveniently” ignoring the obvious emphasis the Separatists and the RusFed forces that supported them had in artillery?

    Normally I wouldn’t complain too much about this. Fighting through dense rust belts or static positions is nasty business and usually calls for lots of artillery; the combo of the two is a real nightmare. But this is actual hypocrisy.

    laws against speaking their native language

    Oh for the love of f-

    Ok Geoffrey, then Cite the Laws. Surely you can do that.

    Because last I checked they were limited to mandates on using the Ukrainian language in official education, which has no relevance to private education or private life.

    Which isn’t surprising because Zelenskyy and huge portions of Ukraine- including more than a few members of Azov- are Russophones.

    The idea that Kyiv is engaging in cultural genocide by banning the use of the language is dumb.

    and now, a 5-10 ten year prison sentence (effectively a death sentence) for voting in the plebiscite

    For the record I am actually opposed to this, for precisely the reasons you might imagine. It is unjust overkill, especially in a situation where coercion to vote would be present.

    But A: Ukrainian prisons are bad but they’re nowhere near bad enough to be a 5-10 year sentence be “virtually a death sentence.” Hell, even under STALIN a ten year GULAG sentence wasn’t a virtual death sentence.

    And B: this isn’t surprising, since the Ukrainian government- correctly- regards the plebiscites being conducted by the occupying Russians as attacks in its sovereignty and illegal to boot, and so wants to depress turnout. Doesn’t mean I approve of this method being used to do so, but it does mean that it is not surprising.

    are of course, illegitimate reasons for desiring a political separation from the Ukraine.

    There are plenty of legitimate and illegitimate reasons to desire a political separation from Ukraine (No “the”), but what matters more in this context is the utterly illegitimate methodology.

    There’s a reason why Putin has never, ever allowed any up or down vote to partition a part of Ukraine without the deployment of occupying Russian Federation military regulars. Not in Crimea back in 2014, not in the Oblasts now.

    This is in utter contrast to Italy.

    Really? Pointing out hypocrisy is investing in a stupid cause?

    Of course they’re not the same thing, cause… you say so.

    Even by your standards this is dishonest and stupid.

    Firstly: I hate Brandon and his puppeteers more than most, but this isn’t even a case of hypocrisy. He opposes both the results of the Italian election and the rigged votes in the Ukrainian East for the same reason: they went against what he views as the “right” result. The fact that that is just about the only similarity they have is irrelevant in the post-modern Left.

    Secondly: they are OBVIOUSLY different. What foreign army occupies parts of Italian soil? Are the Austrians occupying South Tyrol and the Veneto again? Are armed paramilitaries standing with guns drawn and tactical kit at polling places with menace aforethought? Are poll watchers being silenced or otherwise managed?

    Is the voting being conducted in light of a nakedly corrupt law like the Acerbo Law that initiated actual Italian Fascism?

    The answer is obvious. No.

    Were it 1775, I wonder if you’d opine that supporting a separation from Britain is a stupid cause… especially if it takes making war against the most powerful country on earth

    I wonder if you’d note that American revolutionary voting- while accompanied by a host of atrocities and abuses by both sides (with Royalists and Patriots committing often heinous crimes against each other in order to crush resistance)- did not occur with French troops occupying New York and Philadelphia

  24. @Martin, @David Foster, M Smith.

    Well said. Also,

    “Democracy” for Biden has more to do with the result than with the means or the process. When his side wins, it’s democratic. When it loses, it’s a threat to democracy.

    This really reminds me of this book I read recently, which is utterly terrifying and more relevant than I’d like. Stanley Payne’s “ The Collapse of the Spanish Republic, 1933-1936: Origins of the Civil War”

    This focuses less on the actual civil war or even the military putsch that formally started it so much as the lead up to it, and particularly the fundamentally divisive, exclusionary nature of the Spanish Republic. In particular how the “Center-Left Republicans” like Azana who usually are lionized in most treatments of the Spanish Civil War, viewed the Republic as an inherently radical, left-wing entity that only had legitimacy if it continued on a left-wing course implementing their agenda. Which is why when they were defeated at the polls fairly by the right wing and centrist parties they seethed, dabbled in treason and insurrection, and made an alliance with radical socialists and even Anarcho-Syndicalists. And then did things like steal elections. It also talks about how Fascists tended to admire Azana until the civil war.

    There were remarkably few heroes in the Spanish Second Republic- with even the parties of the center and right dogged by corruption and in the case of CEDA creepy authoritarianism, but this tends to be exaggerated in order to lionize the left.

    Also puts a new spin on the references to “our democracy”, no?

    A good review of the book.

    https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/arming-the-people-against-revolution/

  27. Really? Pointing out hypocrisy is investing in a stupid cause?

    You’re not pointing out hypocrisy, you’re making specious arguments. Mr. Turtler has given you a good fisking.

  29. Ally? I think you’ve misspelled “vassal”.

    A country with a population of 60 million and annual domestic product of $3 tn is not a vassal.

  30. “So I’ve had — I’ve met with Xi Jinping over 78 hours, 68 of which are in person, over the last 10 years.”

    What does that even mean?
    “That I’ve been reassuring the Most Honorable, Illustrious, Perspicacious, Brilliant and Sensitive President Xi that he’s getting his money’s worth?

    But hold on! Is Xi REALLY getting his money’s worth?
    How many hours are there in 10 years?
    Let’s see now. 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year (not including leap years). Times ten…comes to 87,600 hours.

    So President Fentanyl’s met his illustrious counterpart 78 hours over the past 87,600…

    (Actually, there’s clearly no need for “Biden” to reassure Xi that the latter is getting his money’s worth…so “Biden” can make up whatever numbers he wants…)
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    MOST IMPORTANTLY, the remark “…And he makes the case straight up that democracies can’t be sustained in the 21st century” is one of the more…” coming from Biden quoting Xi is one of the more hopeful indications over the past long while….

  32. @Banned Lizard

    Meanwhile, through democratic referendums, the Western liberal globalist order demonstrably lost territory today (Friday, September 30th, 2022).

    See above. Had this been talking about Italy it would make sense. But fraudulent, rigged shams carried out in the shadow of bayonets lack any legitimacy. Moreso when you realize how corruptly they were done, such as lying about population displacement in order to justify it.

  33. JimNorCal;

    One of the many reasons Trump was warning the EU about making long term purchase agreements for NG from Russia was because the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP – Azerbaijan to Turkey) and Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP -Greece to Italy) were being completed. This would bring NG from Baku to EU’s southern border. If you click the previous link, you’ll see the landing on Italy’s “heel”.

    In March of this year, the first 10 billion cubic-meters of NG was shipped to EU. Of course, sales have been a bit down for that pipeline, due to a combination of a love for Russian NG and climate change activists trying to cut any use of fossil fuels (Not sure if the “and” is necessary because they seem one in the same most of time). Now there appears to be no other major competitor in the market.

  34. Italy is in much better shape than Germany for the days ahead.

    That was my initial point. Switzerland is getting a bit of that NG coming through Italy as well. Germany, they made their bed with Russia.

  35. @ David Foster > “See my post The Rule of the Prince-Electors”
    “Are we in danger of de facto rule by a Communications Dictatorship, or at least a Communications Oligarchy? I think the threat is clearly a very real one.”

    I certainly agree with you, although with the quibble that, unlike the Holy Roman Empire (“neither holy nor Roman”), our rulers also include Princess-Electors (until they all transition, of course).

    The books you cite are chilling in their forecasts, in the Heinlein Mode of “If this goes on…” — it would be an interesting exercise in forensic history to see what was happening in their days that they extrapolated from.
    However, as has been said often of Orwell’s “1984”: these are supposed to be warnings, not instruction manuals.

    Thanks for keeping us posted on your articles; it’s always rewarding to read your thoughts.

  36. @ David Foster — following the citations in the Ricochet post you linked, I found this particularly prescient (I added some quote marks and paragraphing for clarity):

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/16259.html
    The Scribes and the Idea of Freedom
    October 3, 2010

    Shortly after reading Erin’s review [ of Jonathan Franzen’s novel, Freedom], I encountered this NYT article by a philosophy professor who talks about the “seething anger” of the Tea Parties.

    Two excerpts: “The great and inspiring metaphysical fantasy of independence and freedom is simply a fantasy of destruction” and “To date, the Tea Party has committed only the minor, almost atmospheric violences of propagating falsehoods, calumny and the disruption of the occasions for political speech — the last already to great and distorting effect.”

    (I would think a philosophy professor should be aware that “propagating falsehoods,” even if such a charge were true, is not violence–and asserting that it is seems to me to be inherently undercutting of free speech and to be intellectually preparing the battlefield for various forms of speech-control.)

    It’s gotten hard to argue against that observation.

  37. Continuing to mine David’s links —
    The comments on the Ricochet post include a reference to the censoring of Meloni’s 2019 video, and it’s restoration.

    David Foster: YouTube says the Meloni video was removed in error.

    So if the removal involved a human, are there going to be any consequences for that human?

    If it was removed by an algorithm acting on its own, what is being done to alter that algorithm?

    And a new case (which may have been mentioned already in another post, but should be drawing more attention):

    Judicial Watch files lawsuit against California secretary of state, asserting that the California Office of Elections Cybersecurity (OEC), which Secretary of State Shirley Weber oversees, caused YouTube to remove Judicial Watch’s election integrity video on September 25, 2020. The 26-minute video featured Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discussing the vote-by-mail processes, changes to states’ election procedures, ballot collection (sometimes referred to as “ballot harvesting”), and states’ failures to clean up their voter rolls, among other topics.

    Records show the Office of Elections Cybersecurity communicated with YouTube and/or Google to have Judicial Watch’s video taken down.

    And a warning about why protecting free speech starts with the people nobody likes (well, somebody obviously likes them, but YKWIM):

    Caroljoy:
    Some years ago, I posted the consequences of people accepting that David Ickes is so outside the normal margins of human discourse, as well as their accepting that Alex Jones is so far outside those margins, that they willingly overlooked how the social media PTB was busy censoring them.

    This remark was not an endorsement of Ickes or Jones. It was an endorsement of how the more upsetting or “non-realistic” the views of individuals may be, the more important to early on draw a line in the sand and state clearly “No you may not do this.” Because those who censor will continue to do so.

    Five years ago, the Never Trump crowd did not seem to mind the implications of legacy media lying through their teeth regarding statements he made at press conferences. They did not cringe when “comedian” Kathy Griffin held up Trump’s bloody severed head in effigy.

    I clearly have stated over the years that should censorship not be protested early on, then eventually there would be difficulties here at Ricochet [or any platform] with regards to the ability to have a high level of discourse.

  38. Instapundit Glenn Reynolds referenced an old post from Spiked that is relevant to the censorship regime, and the prince-electors theme, showing that there is indeed an international connection between US elites and European ones.

    https://instapundit.com/545105/
    FLASHBACK: “Now the elites are afraid.” “The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist but this is merely a way of defending their class interests. It is the only argument they can muster to defend their status, but it is not working anymore.”

    Glenn’s link goes here:
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/11/the-gilets-jaunes-are-unstoppable/

    The gilets jaunes (yellow vest) movement has rattled the French establishment. For several months, crowds ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands have been taking to the streets every weekend across the whole of France. They have had enormous success, extracting major concessions from the government. They continue to march.

    Back in 2014, geographer Christopher Guilluy’s study of la France périphérique (peripheral France) caused a media sensation. It drew attention to the economic, cultural and political exclusion of the working classes, most of whom now live outside the major cities. It highlighted the conditions that would later give rise to the yellow-vest phenomenon. Guilluy has developed on these themes in his recent books, No Society and The Twilight of the Elite: Prosperity, the Periphery and the Future of France. spiked caught up with Guilluy to get his view on the causes and consequences of the yellow-vest movement.
    * * * *
    spiked: What exactly do you mean by ‘peripheral France’?

    Christophe Guilluy: ‘Peripheral France’ is about the geographic distribution of the working classes across France. Fifteen years ago, I noticed that the majority of working-class people actually live very far away from the major globalised cities – far from Paris, Lyon and Toulouse, and also very far from London and New York.
    …
    Guilluy: Not only does peripheral France fare badly in the modern economy, it is also culturally misunderstood by the elite. The yellow-vest movement is a truly 21st-century movement in that it is cultural as well as political. Cultural validation is extremely important in our era.

    One illustration of this cultural divide is that most modern, progressive social movements and protests are quickly endorsed by celebrities, actors, the media and the intellectuals. But none of them approve of the gilets jaunes. Their emergence has caused a kind of psychological shock to the cultural establishment. It is exactly the same shock that the British elites experienced with the Brexit vote and that they are still experiencing now, three years later.

    The Brexit vote had a lot to do with culture, too, I think. It was more than just the question of leaving the EU. Many voters wanted to remind the political class that they exist. That’s what French people are using the gilets jaunes for – to say we exist. We are seeing the same phenomenon in populist revolts across the world.
    …
    Guilluy: All the growth and dynamism is in the major cities, but people cannot just move there. The cities are inaccessible, particularly thanks to mounting housing costs. The big cities today are like medieval citadels. It is like we are going back to the city-states of the Middle Ages. Funnily enough, Paris is going to start charging people for entry, just like the excise duties you used to have to pay to enter a town in the Middle Ages.
    …
    Guilluy: We have a new bourgeoisie, but because they are very cool and progressive, it creates the impression that there is no class conflict anymore. It is really difficult to oppose the hipsters when they say they care about the poor and about minorities.

    But actually, they are very much complicit in relegating the working classes to the sidelines. Not only do they benefit enormously from the globalised economy, but they have also produced a dominant cultural discourse which ostracises working-class people. Think of the ‘deplorables’ evoked by Hillary Clinton. There is a similar view of the working class in France and Britain. They are looked upon as if they are some kind of Amazonian tribe. The problem for the elites is that it is a very big tribe.

    The middle-class reaction to the yellow vests has been telling. Immediately, the protesters were denounced as xenophobes, anti-Semites and homophobes. The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist but this is merely a way of defending their class interests. It is the only argument they can muster to defend their status, but it is not working anymore.

    Now the elites are afraid. For the first time, there is a movement which cannot be controlled through the normal political mechanisms. The gilets jaunes didn’t emerge from the trade unions or the political parties. It cannot be stopped. There is no ‘off’ button. Either the intelligentsia will be forced to properly acknowledge the existence of these people, or they will have to opt for a kind of soft totalitarianism.

    A lot has been made of the fact that the yellow vests’ demands vary a great deal. But above all, it’s a demand for democracy. Fundamentally, they are democrats – they want to be taken seriously and they want to be integrated into the economic order.
    …

    It’s been pretty clear in the years since this was posted that the elites of all countries have opted for the soft (or not so soft) totalitarianism.
    In order to “protect our democracy, of course.

  40. All that’s left for “Biden” to do is to quote Erdogan on the bus that is “democracy”.
    Though “he”’ll spice it up a bit by saying that you have to get off that bus (when the time is “right”) for the good of “democracy”…and the people (of course)…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑