What a shocking idea. The people does not exist! So you think that the ruler could do whatever he or she wishes?
That is not what I was about, when I wrote that title. I am talking about the “people” as in the concept of “the will of the people”.
One of my readers commented on my last article about why democracy does not work:
Me: Where do you think I was confused in this article?
Reader: Æquating all concepts of democracy and ‘will of the people’ with liberal systems flooded with open sodomy and foreigners.
He does have a point indeed. I did not explain that the will of the people can vary, depends on who “the people” are.
The thing is, there has never been a unified mass of “the people” who came together and made the exact same decisions, from the first to the last. Nor has democracy ever been about choosing the best person out of a pool of candidates to be the leader of a country.
We will discuss the first of the two points above in this article. The second one will come up in the next.
As the Neoreactionary sage Nick B. Steves wrote about “the people” when he gratefully introduced my last article on Social Matter: [“The people”] are imaginary.
At the time of the American Revolution, “We the People” were basically those who called themselves “patriots”. They did not include the loyalists. 15-20% of the colonial white population were loyalists at that time. Why did “We the People” not included these people?
At the time of the infamous French Revolution, “the people” were the dissident intellectuals who roused up many angry lower class folks. And yet, there were counter revolutions in the Vendée, Aveyron and Lozère where many peasants rose up against the Revolution in the name of the king, and of their local rights and customs. Clearly the people were not unified.
Fast forward to the US election of 1860. “The people” in the South and the North voted very differently.
And now, fast forward to the 2016 one. Ever since November, the Left has been disrupting America in the name of “we the people”.
Like it or not, they are people too!
There simply has never been a unified “the people” who one day decide to march together to the presidential house and tell him or her to do this and that. It has never happened, and will never happen now, when Donald Trump has been elected. I imagine it will be the same if Hillary had been elected.
The idea of “the people” therefore, is a nonexistent concept. And since “the people” does not exist, you can never say “will of the people” or “the people have spoken again”.
Of course, one will be tempted to ask about whether a non democratic leader can make a decisions that do not harm people. This will be dealt with in a future article.
Democracy is actually an inherently more authoritarian position than is monarchism. The reason why is because democracy allows rulers to lie to the public, to slander the public, to abuse the public, to misrepresent the public, and to blow up the government’s power until it turns into an absolute authoritarian military state using the excuse–“this is what the people wanted because they voted for me”. For a monarch, you run the risk that when you lie to the public, a revolt happens. And because numerous officials are also trying to grasp for your power as well, you are more motivated to be clean and honest so people have no excuse for wanting your overthrow. Also, because the people did not choose you, you have less concern when it comes to retaining power in being honest and acknowledging your policies failed. Because people cannot vote you out the next election cycle for someone worse.
LikeLike
I think lying did happen in a monarchy too, as the monarchy could say one thing and later on another, and justifying it by saying he changed his mind. Popular revolt often only happened when there had been so much wrong that a large number of the population could not bear it anymore. I personally think democracy is more totalitarian (authoritarian is the wrong word here) to those who disagree with the president’s position. I am sure the Left would not be as anxious as now had Hilary been elected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope. Hillary would have been writing executive orders against mansplaining.
LikeLike
And feminists would be really happy about it 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s see if Ann Coulter can talk at U.C. Berkeley next week 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I have thought this for a long time, “The People” is an imaginary concept, particularly in the present day US. There are white people, and black people, and Christian people, and Muslim people, and Jewish people and atheist people and they all have different political goals in mind. It’s sort of like the demonym ‘American’ which can now mean anything and everything and therefore mean absolutely nothing, making it completely obsolete.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ethnogenesis is a real process, though, and God in both the Old Testament and the New treats nations as real, with the peoples appertaining thereunto.
LikeLike
I am talking about the people as in the will of the people which does not exist
LikeLike
You seem to be using circular reasoning now: The will of the people does not exist, ergo the people in that sense does not exist; the people in the sense of ‘the will of the people’ does not exist, ergo there is no will (‘will of the people’) for such a nonentity to have or express. What are you even saying?
LikeLike
The people here means those who are not part of the government
LikeLike
Isn’t that what you are writing about though? the people as the government? (I get your point about the “will of the people.” I’m just confused about your premise.) Of course the true principle would be Concordia.
LikeLike
Please see Nick B. Steves’ comment.
LikeLike
I don’t believe there is such a thing among citizens: the rest must be slaves or metics.
LikeLike
Speaking of a people singular is a valid concept, in theory. But the more you try to encapsulate with that concept, the less valid it becomes. America is (and always has been) a land of multiple peoples (plural). Even among a valid singular people (e.g., Southern Planters, Pennsylvania Quakers, Irish Catholics), there remains no valid concept of “will of the people”.
Will of the people is always false. It is made doubly false when applied to America, because not only is there no (unified coherent singular) will of the people, there is no (unified coherent singular) people.
“Neoreactionary sage” eh? I shall have to add this to my list of accomplishments!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are always welcomed
LikeLike