Radical Liberal Democracy: When an Elected Tyrant is Preferable to a Self-Appointed One.
IF HALF OR MORE OF THE ELECTORATE thinks their majority-elected leader is a tyrant, it follows that a majority of the people elected a tyrant. Whether the leader demonstrated tyrannical tendencies before being elected or became a tyrant is irrelevant. But if he showed signs of tyrannical behavior as a candidate and was elected regardless, it follows that a majority of people willingly voted for a tyrant. If a majority of the people willingly elected a tyrant, was it because they preferred to live under the oppression of an elected tyrant rather than a self-appointed one? More simply, is the tyranny of the majority acceptable over the tyranny of the minority? Or is the tyranny of the majority the spoils of political war, an acceptable consequence of self-rule regardless of how the minority is treated?
A central principle of republicanism is that tyranny should neither be tolerated nor adapted to be less tyrannical; it should be overthrown. The loss of republican principles has been supercharged by the loss of Republicans to Trumpism. As long as they continue to reap enormous financial rewards and power from their lack of principles, they will remain in the unprincipled fascist camp of Trumpism.
Once this political conflict is over, those of us who love liberal democracy should remember the lessons learned during the drafting of our Constitution and the Civil War: Do not allow the haters of liberal democracy back into the political arena. Protect their constitutional and natural rights, but disenfranchise them from voting or holding office for generations.
