The End of History

[Bootstrap]

We seem to be in an age where the democratic system has crystalized and no longer produces candidates that a majority really wants. Reasonable and moderate candidates are cast aside in favor of the confrontational, extreme or otherwise questionable.

We live in a country with very close elections, and any American government is going to rule over a country that votes about 50% Democratic and about 50% Republican. These confrontational, extreme candidates often say that 50% of Americans are the enemy, or they don't belong here, etc.

Some of them question the legitimacy of pretty much every institution that we have in common - courts, elections, science, Congress and the presidency (at least those of the other party), facts ....

The government's role is to govern. And to govern all Americans.

[Josh]

We seem to be in an age where the democratic system has crystalized and no longer produces candidates that a majority really wants. Reasonable and moderate candidates are cast aside in favor of the confrontational, extreme or otherwise questionable.

We live in a country with very close elections, and any American government is going to rule over a country that votes about 50% Democratic and about 50% Republican. These confrontational, extreme candidates often say that 50% of Americans are the enemy, or they don't belong here, etc.

Some of them question the legitimacy of pretty much every institution that we have in common - courts, elections, science, Congress and the presidency (at least those of the other party), facts ....

The government's role is to govern. And to govern all Americans.

So, Boot, that's ended up meaning we live in a country where we get homosexual marriage, abortion, and other very wicked things forced on the rest of us. (And often starting with a clear minority that weasels its way into eventually forcing everyone else to accept it.)

The end result of "liberal democracy" is a state where you are forced to say abortion and homosexuality are good things, or else you lose your job. This is not a good thing, and it is very difficult for me to understand how this is any worse than "authoritarian populism".

[Bootstrap]

So, Boot, that's ended up meaning we live in a country where we get homosexual marriage, abortion, and other very wicked things forced on the rest of us. (And often starting with a clear minority that weasels its way into eventually forcing everyone else to accept it.)

The world is, in fact, the world. You and I aren't forced to live by their values. But people who are not Christians have the right to live here too. And it's not just homosexuality and abortion, it's also militarism, greed, adultery, rejecting God ...

The end result of "liberal democracy" is a state where you are forced to say abortion and homosexuality are good things, or else you lose your job.

I don't think so. I think you would win in court against any company that forces you to say abortion and homosexuality are good things. And someone else would win in court against most companies that force their employees to say Kingdom Christianity is a good thing. I almost got fired once because of my pacifist stance, which meant I would not teach workshops to the military for religious reasons, but their legal counsel warned them not to do that.

I don't think we can use the government to force other people to live the way we choose to. Neither can they. That's a big part of liberal democracy. If we long for a government that can put THEM in their place ... just remember that the same government can turn around and do the same to us.

This is not a good thing, and it is very difficult for me to understand how this is any worse than "authoritarian populism".

I'll start a thread on authoritarian populism when I have time. I think there are good reasons that a Christian should have nothing to do with authoritarian populism. At least, not a biblical Christian.

[Josh]

I don't think so. I think you would win in court against any company that forces you to say abortion and homosexuality are good things. And someone else would win in court against most companies that force their employees to say Kingdom Christianity is a good thing. I almost got fired once because of my pacifist stance, which meant I would not teach workshops to the military for religious reasons, but their legal counsel warned them not to do that.

OK, boot. So first off, as Christians, we try to avoid filing lawsuits, so saying "you could win in court" is not really that helpful.

But secondly, exactly what legal basis would I have? An employer can fire you for your political beliefs, and opposition to homosexuality and abortion have been framed as political beliefs in America. I would lose such a lawsuit.

I don't think we can use the government to force other people to live the way we choose to. Neither can they. That's a big part of liberal democracy. If we long for a government that can put THEM in their place ... just remember that the same government can turn around and do the same to us.

Government is instituted by God to be a terror to evildoers. Abortion is evildoing. One of the functions of government is exercising the use of force to prevent the slaughtering of innocent people, and nobody is more innocent than an unborn baby.

I'll start a thread on authoritarian populism when I have time. I think there are good reasons that a Christian should have nothing to do with authoritarian populism. At least, not a biblical Christian.

Could you expound on how a Christian should have something to with liberal democracy when they are a minority and this liberal democracy repeatedly promotes things like pushing homosexuality and transsexuality on children, abortion (including pushing abortion access on mothers who are children themselves), and restricting expression of Christianity in the public sphere?

These things are not theoretical - this is the reality in places like the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and America today. You cannot do something in the UK as simple as pray the rosary in front of an abortion clinic without getting arrested and imprisoned.

[Ernie]

I think Richard Hanania is just as deluded as Francis Fukuyama. We don't have the peaceful, transfer of elections. Political violence happens often as in the recent case regarding Mr. Pelosi. We have attempted secession movements. etc.

[Josh]

I think Richard Hanania is just as deluded as Francis Fukuyama. We don't have the peaceful, transfer of elections. Political violence happens often as in the recent case regarding Mr. Pelosi.

That is not "political violence". Be careful believing everything you read.

We have attempted secession movements. etc.

America has had no such thing since the Civil War. The only secession movements so far (in the U.S.) have been entirely peaceful.

[Bootstrap]

I think Richard Hanania is just as deluded as Francis Fukuyama. We don't have the peaceful, transfer of elections. Political violence happens often as in the recent case regarding Mr. Pelosi.

That is not "political violence". Be careful believing everything you read.

This sure looks like political violence to me. It's a quote from the criminal complaint.

[Ken]

I think Richard Hanania is just as deluded as Francis Fukuyama. We don't have the peaceful, transfer of elections. Political violence happens often as in the recent case regarding Mr. Pelosi.

That is not "political violence". Be careful believing everything you read.

We have attempted secession movements. etc.

America has had no such thing since the Civil War. The only secession movements so far (in the U.S.) have been entirely peaceful.

But we have had a very long history of political violence that continues to this day.

[HondurasKeiser]

I think Richard Hanania is just as deluded as Francis Fukuyama. We don't have the peaceful, transfer of elections. Political violence happens often as in the recent case regarding Mr. Pelosi. We have attempted secession movements. etc.

Blaming what happened to Mr. Pelosi on "Political Violence" is just as uncareful and tangential as blaming it on "illegal immigration". What's more, to suggest that we don't have peaceful elections because, in a country of 330 million people, one, mentally-ill Canadian (redundant I know) attacked a man that is himself not a politician, comes across as a little desperate, empties the term of real meaning and thus makes light of heavy-handed regimes around the world that actually and effectively employ 'political violence' to maintain their hold on power in places like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iran & North Korea. Real political violence is organized state repression not mentally-ill, drug addicts wielding hammers.

[Bootstrap]

I think Richard Hanania is just as deluded as Francis Fukuyama. We don't have the peaceful, transfer of elections. Political violence happens often as in the recent case regarding Mr. Pelosi. We have attempted secession movements. etc.

Blaming what happened to Mr. Pelosi on "Political Violence" is just as uncareful and tangential as blaming it on "illegal immigration". What's more, to suggest that we don't have peaceful elections because, in a country of 330 million people, one, mentally-ill Canadian (redundant I know) attacked a man that is himself not a politician, comes across as a little desperate, empties the term of real meaning and thus makes light of heavy-handed regimes around the world that actually and effectively employ 'political violence' to maintain their hold on power in places like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iran & North Korea. Real political violence is organized state repression not mentally-ill, drug addicts wielding hammers.

Real political violence is violence that is politically motivated. Let's not excuse January 6th, Charlottesville, Antifa, Proud Boys, or the Ku Klux Klan because most of them aren't working for the government. They are a real threat.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Domestic Violent Extremism Poses Heightened Threat in 2021