‘Progressive’ Voting Proposal Recycles Ancient Totalitarian Elitism

By David Codrea

USA – -(Ammoland.com)-“A reader has sent in an essay by Georgetown professor Jason Brennan, in which he argues that we can avoid stupid decisions like the Brexit vote if we institute an ‘epistocracy,’ system through which smart people who know things rule,” Rod Dreher, Senior Editor at The American Conservative writes. He presented it in the context of Hillary’s “basket of deplorable” insult, and the implications of giving even more power to the elites to marginalize nationalists and conservatives.

That of course presupposes self-rule in defiance of globalist elites is the wrong idea. Evidently what Europe really needs is more open borders and still more Islamic “refugees” crossing them to suckle and settle where they will (coming soon to a Caliphate near you).

Per “ethicist” Brennan (and there’s an Opposite Day “progressive” title if there ever was one), unless you have an advanced education in sociology, economics, and politics, your opinion should carry no weight. Shut up, and then what’s the end goal? Oh, yeah, submission.

As an aside, it’s curious he’s writing this via Princeton University Press. That brings to mind Princeton “ethics professor” Peter Singer, who endorsed euthanizing disabled infants and called all newborns up to 30 days old fair game for termination because they’re not yet “persons.”

Hey, if they’re not yet human, when is some chic “progressive” restaurant going to start serving them up to the rich and trendy epistocracy set? Ethically, what’s to stop it, and as Swift noted (satirically, meaning he must have been deplorable), it would be all for the public good.

Oh, to be as smart as academics.

It’s true there are a lot of dumb voters. Just watch a Mark Dice video, and make special notice that it’s not constitutional conservatives making complete ignoramuses of themselves.While it’s also true that surveys show Democrats (as an aggregate) edge out Republicans on advanced degrees (hey, there are quite a few worthless “liberal arts fields of study” out there), note that populations putting them over the top come from urban areas with substandard public (Democrat) union schools and high dropout rates.

Then note the “benefits’ of long-term Democrat rule just in the poverty and violence numbers.

As with all things “progressive,” Brennan’s epistocracy epiphany is, at its core, just the recycling of an old idea. A very old idea.

Classical Greek philosopher Plato envisioned “philosopher kings.” Naturally, such a system is collectivist in nature.  And naturally, it’s also totalitarian.

“The trick is to find a political system that … spreads power out enough to prevent people from using power selfishly,” Brennan acknowledges.  Good luck with that. Will they ride unicorns, too?

And why stop at who gets to vote? Wouldn’t we all be better off if our “superiors” decided who gets to speak and how, who gets to worship and what, who gets to keep and bear arms…?

How about who gets to live…?

The word “democracy” Brennan wants to replace with “epistocracy” appears nowhere in the Constitution. Only members of the House of Representatives were intended to be selected by popular vote (and the damage done by Amendment XVII will be a subject for another day).

Checks and balances against a “tyranny of the majority” are built into the system, from other branches with separate delegated powers, to the Bill of Rights which no majority can lawfully abrogate, and ultimately, to the Second Amendment as the ultimate check and balance.

Talk about true egalitarian power-sharing. No wonder power-craving control freak “progressives” regard those who will not surrender their birthright as “deplorable.”

And what’s the solution to the dumb voter?

It’s not a solution really, so much as a protection against it. By all means, as author J. Neil Schulman reasoned, “A well-schooled electorate [is] necessary to the security of a free State.” Just bear in mind that in any sampling of humans, half are going to be below average in terms of intelligence, awareness, morality, responsibility, industriousness, etc.

So the ultimate safeguard is if there is a critical mass of Americans heeding Patrick Henry’s call:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

And what constitutes such a critical mass?

We won’t be sure until those who would impose their will without restraint work up the nerve to try it. But there’s pretty good anecdotal evidence that three percent of gun owners may be enough to repel the Philosopher Kings, or the Epistocrats, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves.

A larger percentage – especially if equipped, capable, informed and vocal – would make the survival-minded among our would-be solons loath to even try. Which means the Second Amendment would be working as intended at maintaining the peace, and just as individual aggressors can be discouraged by the fear of armed resistance, so too does that work on a societal level.

The “equipped, capable, informed and vocal” part is up to you and me until it falls on our posterity. Or would you rather just trust that some “progressive” college “ethicist” and his political friends have your best interests at heart?

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.