I do not believe in democracy. A lynch mob is the perfect example of democracy, almost unanimous agreement with only one dissenting vote. In some cities in America it has come to mob rule, which is another form of democracy.
I was not arguing for a "pure democracy." That would be crazy, of course. If I was walking down the street and met two people who wanted my money, they could say, "Let's put it to a vote. You lose. Give us your money."
Rule of law is just words if not enforced. Rule of law means nothing if there are two sets of laws: one for them, and another for us. Two courts: one for them and another for us. Two occasions for police arrest: one for them and other for us.
That is the reason people have been protesting. First it was white slaveowners beating slaves. Then it was the Jim Crow era and lynchings. Today it's often white cops.
When the captain of the ship endangers both the ship, and the crew, the captain is forcibly relieved of command. When any lieutenant is guilty of dereliction of duty, or gives unlawful orders, that lieutenant is relieved of command. When the mayor of a city lives behind gated walls, using police protection, allowing a group of thugs and rioters to injure and kill her citizens, she should be forcibly removed from office. Some situations can't wait for an election.
Who gets to decide to remove these people? Me? You? The people with the most guns?
The role of the United States is not to make the world safe for democracy; the role of the United States is to make democracy safe for the world. Big difference. Our founders handed us a republican form of government and it is up to the people to keep it. Over time, the public has unwittingly and unfortunately moved the country away from republicanism toward democracy which accounts for what we see now.
I wouldn't say this. I'd say we started off with a wonderful ideal -- a republic where eveyone has the same rights, and a republic where our government is decided by democratic elections. We have been struggling to achieve that ideal. When this country was founded, women couldn't vote. Husbands could beat their wives with impunity. Blacks couldn't vote. Blacks had no civil rights when this country was founded. Black people still do not have equal rights.
While I do not believe in a "pure democracy," I can see that if one group can prevent another group from voting, the first group can rule and have other rights the other doesn't. What is putting pressure on the supremacy of the traditional rule by white men is the decline in numbers of white people. This year more children of color were born than white children. It is a matter of time before white people become less than 50% of the population. We also see a decline in the percentage of people identifying themselves as Christians. That means Christians feel threatened.
White Protestant men are losing their power; and as time goes by, they will lose more. They will lose more elections too.
The question is if people of color will treat white people the way white people treated them. It can happen. It does happen in a few places. I can tell you that there is a district justice close to where I live who is black. Most of the people voting in that district are black. If a white person and a black person appear in his court, he invariably sides with the black. He gets re-elected because enough black voters like that. It should not surprise you or me or anyone else. White people have done the same thing since the founding of the country. We have factions or groups who want more rights for themselves at the expense of other people.
Many Trump supporters seem to fear is the loss of white power and the loss of imposing their religious values on others. They are increasingly finding themselves the minority, thus opposed more and more to the idea of democratic elections. They talk about rising up and overthrowing people who were elected. Who gets to decide if we don't use elections? The KKK? The BLM? Franklin Graham? Paula White? The Pope?
Democracy has its problems, to be sure, since there will be factions lobbying for special rights for themselves; but the alternatives are no better. Rebelling against a democratically elected government almost always leads to a dictator who promises (as Hitler did) the rule of law and order.
BTW, county sheriff's have more power than you might think. Under certain circumstances, they have more power than the President of the United States. Don't underestimate the power of the county sheriff.
You may want to write Trump and tell him this. He seems to think he possesses all authority. The authority of sheriffs is derived and supported by the Tenth Amendment, of course. It does not give them the right to interfere or oppose national, state or local law enforcement when those are being conducted lawfully. Sheriffs do not have the right to rise up and overthrow the government. After all, many sheriffs are elected democratically. We do not want mob rule by saying sheriffs can do whatever voters in their locales want. I wouldn't want a Muslim sheriff elected by Muslims to think he could impose sharia law.
Our local sheriff announced he wouldn't be enforcing some of the regulations issued by the governor over coronavirus. Why did he do that? Well he knew it would be popular in this area (largely Republican) to oppose the Democratic governor. He wants to be re-elected. He's going down the "pure democracy" road. I won't vote him the next time he runs. The state police enforced the rules somewhat -- he really didn't need to in the first place. He was making a pointless political statement. He was in favor of mob rule: "Republicans in my district don't like these regulations, so I won't be enforcing them."
There is a potential threat to the rule of law and order playing out now with how Trump ordered federal agents into Portland. They are in unmarked vans, grabbing people off the streets. Trump said it's to protect monuments and statues. You know what? If the people in Portland want to wreck statues and their government doesn't care, why should I? Why should Trump? Maybe the voters will learn a lesson in Portland and vote the current people out in the next election. If things got bad enough, they could ask Trump for help. Then he'd be right to give them help. The way he's doing it is the way a dictator would. He gets to decide everything -- federal, state and local. And he's breaking the law to do it, kidnapping people for walking down the street too close to a statue. Most aren't being charged with anything. They're just detained for hours against their will.
What is dangerous is that state and local governments are now looking at Trump and the federal government as threats. The federal government can't keep "law and order" in front of the White House. What makes Trump think he can impose "law and order" across the country from the top down? Only a regime like Stalin's or Hitler's can impose "law and order" from the top down.
I am annoyed by Trump's "executive order" about protecting statues and monuments. Do they have rights? Are they living, breathing people? Are they so important that it's worth it to kidnap people off the streets? Trump may say "law and order" but his actions show otherwise.
