The election should be regarded as a democratic vote. Both the left and the right are in agreement on this point. We see that these words can be used in a variety of ways, as we saw with the “red mirage” talk this week. We were told that Republicans may appear to be leading, but the Democrats will catch up once other ballots have been counted. Although the media spoke too quickly, it seems that what was expected to become a wave has turned into a more typical midterm. But, what they did say is still true.
There is a ridiculous contradiction between the terms and the reality. How is democracy, the rule of the many and rule by vote and law, possible? A threat from an enactment democracy? We the many, who are also all one, voted according to norms. This is more than a desperate liberal cry to turn out the votes. It is the realization of something after Election Day. That governing is independent from voting. Election Day is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
It’s Election Week, sometimes even longer. While last night’s results were clear, we still have to wait, as promised. The Senate is still undecided on Arizona, Alaska and Nevada. As a matter of fact, the race between Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker in Georgia was always at risk. But, yesterday’s vote did not provide a clear answer. House seats are also still up for grabs across the country. It took several days for the final count to be completed in the Washington Third District. I am closely following Joe Kent. Pennsylvania was surprised by this surprise. Instead of reporting results the night before, everyone was prepping for a lengthy legal battle over voting. Although this was not a pleasant development, John Fetterman was elected to the Senate seat. Once again, Democrats will send a sick person to Washington instead of resting in bed.
Republicans seem to be ready for simple majority, or at the very least one in Congress. If “democracy”, or the Biden regime, were ever threatened, it will still live. We have J.D. Vance to celebrate.
The democracy question is a question about regimes. Some people, who identify themselves as being on the left, but some are Republican-affiliated, understand democracy in its classical meaning, even though they wouldn’t use those words and consider it to be a form of regime. It is the rule for the many, it is rule towards equality and equity. Although it might look like a skinsuit that is worn high above an oligarchy’s head, it is still a skinsuit that must be pledged to the benefit of all. Democracies are liberal democracy. They are the march of history and an arch that bends towards justice. It is not the vote; it is what you vote for.
On the right, however, for those who are pedantic and really believe that the flag is a republic, democracy describes mass suffrage and voting for representation. This is a mechanism through which our Constitutional order on this continent and national story can be continued and preserved. Democracy in this sense does not refer to the regime, it is the ballot.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
The election must be respected in both of these senses, even though they are so different. If democracy is the actual regime, then once again secured by fair or foul, open lawsfare or metropolitan machines ( fortified or saved), it is impossible to question the legitimacy of the election. It is to state that, despite the fact that the many may not rule, there are real governors who are unelected and largely unknown. Thus questions become sacrilege, become denial.
If democracy is what we have chosen to give our representatives to us, to govern ourselves through delegation, then it must be trusted. We must ensure that the tool we use to accomplish great things is not broken. Machines shouldn’t be broken. The process of voting and democracy have been altered before. Each change has been evaluated and modified as a means to an end. It is important to have confidence that elected officials represent the people they are governing, and that the selection process was fair and free. This will allow us to unify the few and the many above all else.
It is absurd that we still wait for results, even though we were told to. These delays and the reassurances by establishment media that they are normal only highlight the extent to which the country is divided about democracy’s nature. Is it the end or the means? What is the end of a means? A goal that justifies what is done?