What do you call a government in which the voters are only allowed to choose between “option a” and “option b” but not “option c”? It is an aristocracy, in which the elites restrict the choices of the electorate, to only approved options. It’s rather like the Soviets saying, “You may democratically elect your next President from among these two communist choices.” Aristocracies may masquerade as various forms of democracy, but functionally they are never self-governance by the people.
True self-governance requires an open debate of ideas, so that “option c” – as well as options “d,” “e,” and “f” – can be discovered, evaluated, and considered. Sometimes the problems faced by a society can’t be corrected by the choices preferred by those in power. Willingness to consider all ideas provides the essential ingredient for democracy – information.
That’s why the cancel culture corrodes our self-governance. Debate is foreclosed and alternative solutions to problems are never discovered when
- Speakers are shouted down at universities,
- Livelihoods are threatened because of political views, and
- Unapproved opinions are censored as “disinformation.”
To prohibit debate is the equivalent of a jury only being given the evidence which the prosecution wishes them to see. Without the essential prosecution/defense debate, the verdict cannot be taken as justice, because the jury was not given complete information.
Unfortunately, recent news from Idaho is very disturbing. Former Chairman of the Idaho Republican Party, Trent Clark, is raising the alarm in an article he has on Substack – Booting the Bundyites, A Medicine that May Be Worse than the Disease.
Mr. Clark reports that the Idaho Republican party is debating a rule change that would implement panels empowered to enforce party orthodoxy. If approved, those panels would have the power to “un-affiliate” (or as Clark calls it: excommunicate) party members supporting non-party approved positions, such as an Article V convention. The “excommunicated” would subsequently be prohibited from voting in primary elections. Does that sound like an invitation for open debate, or is it an attempt to prevent the consideration of unfavored ideas?
It is increasingly apparent that a desire to control the choices of the electorate, is an inclination shared by both major political parties. Perhaps that’s why populism is growing in America. This universal party propensity to restrict debate reveals why many of our government problems will not be solved at the ballot box – because the solutions are not beneficial to those in power. An Article V convention – which the Idaho Republican Party opposes – empowers the states to shift the balance of power – back to “we the people” – in a way that the political parties have no interest in, by conducting a debate about ideas, without the consent of Congress.
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA