- Joined
- Jun 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,655
- Reaction score
- 942
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
The recent kerfluffle over the DOMA decision reminded me of the fundamentalist reason that I am hostile to American conservatism, when I'd likely be considered quite far to the Right in virtually any European nation: I do not believe that the vox populi speaks with any moral voice.
The argument that "the people should decide" is profoundly queer when it is advanced by conservatives. It is a tacit concession to democracy - and what is conservatism good for if not to check and curb the excesses of popular sentiment?
Our political structure is founded on an overriding hostility to direct democracy, and rightly so. The old quote that The People "is a wild beast" is especially true in a society where the individual is trampled in by the collective. Conservatives acknowledge the fundamentalist unfairness of penalizing the wealthy through popular mandate - the Old Right's opposition to the New Deal was as driven at least as much by support for the autonomy of the individual as by the economic concerns of wealth. But this old lesson has been completely forgotten by right-winged populists.
I prefer a society governed by the learned than by one controlled by mass whim. I oppose this latter especially in cases where it threatens to undermine the position of the individual as the basis of society - which the individual is and NOT "the family", mind. So I oppose, for instance, allowing gay marriage on a ballot at all, whether it be in Maine (which voted to allow it) or in Missouri (whi voted for prohibition). In both cases I would prefer a judicial ruling, even one banning gay marriage - which I support - to a popular vote, even one allowing it.
This holds good for all controversial social issues, in my eyes. Democracy is the rule by the incompetence over the impotent. And it ought to be opposed.
The argument that "the people should decide" is profoundly queer when it is advanced by conservatives. It is a tacit concession to democracy - and what is conservatism good for if not to check and curb the excesses of popular sentiment?
Our political structure is founded on an overriding hostility to direct democracy, and rightly so. The old quote that The People "is a wild beast" is especially true in a society where the individual is trampled in by the collective. Conservatives acknowledge the fundamentalist unfairness of penalizing the wealthy through popular mandate - the Old Right's opposition to the New Deal was as driven at least as much by support for the autonomy of the individual as by the economic concerns of wealth. But this old lesson has been completely forgotten by right-winged populists.
I prefer a society governed by the learned than by one controlled by mass whim. I oppose this latter especially in cases where it threatens to undermine the position of the individual as the basis of society - which the individual is and NOT "the family", mind. So I oppose, for instance, allowing gay marriage on a ballot at all, whether it be in Maine (which voted to allow it) or in Missouri (whi voted for prohibition). In both cases I would prefer a judicial ruling, even one banning gay marriage - which I support - to a popular vote, even one allowing it.
This holds good for all controversial social issues, in my eyes. Democracy is the rule by the incompetence over the impotent. And it ought to be opposed.