“ Democracy” is the new “ revolutionary. ”
In the old Marxist regimes, anything that displeased the ruling communist routine was said to be contrary to “ the revolution. ” For instance , in the Soviet Union, nationwide leaders spoke regularly showing how the nation was in the process of “ a revolutionary transformation” toward an upcoming idealized communist society. A long time after the actual revolution plus coup d’etat in Russia in following the collapse of Tsarist Russia, the word “ revolution” had “ positive connotations and has been considered a source of legitimacy in official ideology . ”
Revolutionary became a synonym along with “ a thing we such as, ” and it’s no surprise that will a 1952 soviet legal manual lists “ counterrevolutionary” activities since among the “ political crimes … deemed generally dangerous crimes against the order of the state. ” Moreover, in the early 1950s, when Mao Zedong launched new initiatives to consolidate communist power, he called the effort the “ campaign to control counterrevolutionaries. ” Other routines adopted similar practices too. Castro’s Cuba frequently launched investigations and campaigns against “ antirevolutionary” dissidents plus Ethiopia’s Marxist governments in the 1970s described domestic opponents because guilty of “ anti-revolutionary offences. ”
Anything that was deemed “ counterrevolutionary” or “ antirevolutionary” was assumed to be an awful factor that was a threat towards the reliably vague notion of progress toward the fulfillment of the alleged revolution. The vagueness of the term had been, of course , an advantage from the viewpoint of the regime. Consequently, to be a counterrevolutionary required nothing more than to be guilty of thoughtcrime by signing up for heterodox views in regards to the current ruling party.
Thus, to be a counterrevolutionary was simply to be opposed to the regime, regardless of one’s real ideological views. This is why communist Emma Goldman (a bona fide revolutionary) could be denounced since “ anti-revolutionary” for conveying doubts about the virtues from the Soviet regime. One’s assistance for actual revolution was irrelevant, and “ antirevolutionary” could simply de described or redefined as no matter the regime found objectionable at any time.
In the season 2022, we find the word “ democracy” serving a similar function in political discourse. Chief executive Biden has delivered two major speeches this year on how “ democracy” will supposedly be abolished if Biden’s opponents win. Last week, former chief executive Barack Obama solemnly intoned that if Republicans win within Arizona, “ democracy as we know it may not survive . ” Indeed, this has turn out to be something of a mantra amongst leftwing politicians and their own media allies. One article writer at Salon chastised voters for daring to let their votes be influenced by economic concerns when “ democracy is under threat . ” One New York Times headline bemoaned the apparent reality that voters don’t seem interested in “ saving democracy” when it’s all so supposedly clear that “ democracy is in peril. ”
So why are so many voters ready to allegedly “ trade democracy for cheap gasoline “? The answer most likely lies in the fact that most voters can see what is obvious: the one thing actually in peril may be the Left’s version of democracy, which is an anything-goes-including-rampant-voter-fraud model meant for voting in US polls. Moreover, the Left wants a federal takeover of polls which in the United States have always been at least moderately decentralized. Instead, the particular “ prodemocracy” camp desires federally enforced election rules prohibiting limitations on voting for aliens, dead individuals, and frauds. If the Left does poorly in this political election, that’s a lot less likely to happen.
Any make an effort to limit fraud— such as needing identification for voters can be denounced as “ antidemocratic. ” Indeed, nothing better shows this than the Left’s complaints about the fact that some police force officers have monitored polling places. As one Georgetown University bureaucrat put it , allowing law enforcement personnel to protect ballot boxes might “ intimidate” some people, and sends the message that voter fraud actually occurs. This particular, she tells us, is “ abhorrent. ” But essentially of this complaint is simply a good aversion to the idea that the existence of police might scare many people off from ballot stuffing as well as other forms of fraud.
Ironically, by this way of thinking, to be “ prodemocracy” is to not care whether or not the voting process is fradulent. Thus, just like the term “ revolutionary” under the old communist regimes, the terms “ democratic” and “ democracy” in the US today ceases to get any meaning and really just means “ what our aspect likes. ” After all, most reasonable people would conclude that democratic institutions exist when there are regular elections plus generally universal suffrage intended for citizens. The overwhelming most of countries that the Left phone calls “ democracies” — France, Germany, Iceland , etc— have voter recognition requirements, checks against dual voting, and similar way of preventing fraud. In the United States, the particular Left calls all this “ antidemocratic. ”
The actual details of what it means to be prodemocratic or antidemocratic avoid actually matter when it comes to politics discourse. The word “ democratic” is an emotionally loaded expression, and essentially code intended for “ politically legitimate. ” All that really issues is to call one’s allies “ democratic” and to denounce the other side as “ undemocratic. ” In America today, to be labeled “ democratic” indicates one has the approval from the ruling regime. Those who are labeled “ undemocratic” are those who, like the “ counterrevolutionaries” of old, have been deemed— appropriately or wrongly— threats to the status quo.