Having spent some time reading Supreme Court summations, I think historians looking back on what will be left of the smoking ruins of the western democractic after it auto-asphyxiates itself to death will probably read the utterances that emanated from the supreme court with complete bemusement. Maybe it will be made into a comedy show. I say probably, because no doubt this whole debacle will either go down with the total ignominy it deserves, or will somehow become part of some politically legitimizing narrative, at which point politically disinterested analysis will become impossible. The narrative of progress seems to lend credence to the second possibility, with everything, and anything that happens becoming a case of logical narrative leading to the current political paradigm. Criticizing any of it for being incoherent, retarded and plain wrong has a destabilizing effect.
Moldbug made a point of reviewing history as a means to undermine the present, with the American Revolution, The American Civil War, The Vietnam War, decolonization and World War 2 coming under flack. There are many more legitimizing narratives that make up the progression of our current system, and all of them are bunk. The Reformation and its influence on the thinking of the likes of Locke and Hobbes for example is devastating, given that it seems clear the states and power structures were behind the violence, and not “religion.” But we can do this all day and have zero effect, because it has to be acknowledged with crystal clarity that accuracy is not a defining process in the selection and propagation of ideas, instead simple, pure, power is. This is how so much illogical trash is so dominant, and why patently stupid ideas thrive. If this offends your sensibility, then maybe political theory is not for you.
This all brings us to the current political landscape. Without raw, simple power, you have zero chance of installing your conception of how things should be organised and run. It is as simple as this. Can you, and do you have the means to, compel others to do as you wish, and to cut off their ability to propagate their ideas? Of course, in a democracy this is not acceptable, because we have a market place of ideas, and all are equal in the institutions of the state, except this is not true. There is an area inside of which the current political paradigm accepts as legitimate, and that which is not is merely caste from existence without discussion. The left within the system being comprised of the actual governing elements understands this only too well, and to maintain this they engage in a great deal of behaviour that is clearly outside of the formal remit of the Republican structure to maintain this fraud. The obvious conservative complaint that this is not fair, or it is unconstitutional is pathetic, and an acknowledgement that they are merely underlings. But this is the bind, if the conservative then rejects this state of affairs and seeks to then engage in the same behaviour, they become an enemy and will come into the view of power. Of course, imagining a conservative that understood that extra-republican structures are vital to winning in a republic, and vital to maintaining a republic, is like imagining a tall and short man – a logical fallacy. They no longer believe in a republic. Maybe there are signs of life here. Probably not. But we can hope.
The only positive I can then see in the Trump election debacle is that maybe some people (it doesn’t have to be many) start to think seriously and in depth about the very structure of governance and the nature of power. For anything to be achieved, serious extra-republican structures would need to be devised and used to control the republic externally as a means to taking over the republic institutions themselves. They won’t remove themselves.
This line of thinking then requires a further consideration in that do you really think re-instituting a constitution as a ruling document would be logical, given the previous one led to this? Steel-manning it, and placing it on a technological footing for example, doesn’t negate the usage of extra-republican actors, or the creative interpretation of its wording, neither does having another division of balancing institutions whom will merely go to war incessantly with each other, as has occurred with every such configuration.
And given that it is clear the media primes the population to vote how they wish it to do, do you really think allowing them “freedom” is the best idea imaginable?