I have been struggling to make sense of the political and societal chaos we are now experiencing.

How can a political party put up a candidate with overt communist tendencies, another candidate who is manifestly corrupt and is demonstrably mentally challenged, and a vapid candidate who promotes communist solutions to social and economic issues but is so inarticulate that she makes little sense?

Likewise, how can this political party oppose an opposition candidate with such ferocity that it borders on the criminal abuse of power and the manifest violation of the candidate’s civil rights?

Are we living in a world gone mad, governed by corrupt idiots, or is there a master plan at work?

What it is that I believe we are seeing.

I believe that we are witnessing the progressive communist democrats redefining “democracy” from the consent of the governed to the consent of the governors and the weaponization of institutions to prosecute and persecute their opposition.

Democracy, as traditionally understood, is founded on the principle of the “consent of the governed.” This idea, deeply rooted in Enlightenment thinking and championed by political philosophers like John Locke, asserts that legitimate political power arises from the will and agreement of the people. It is the essence of democratic governance: a system where individuals collectively choose their leaders and, by extension, the policies that will shape their lives.

However, in recent times, there has been a subtle yet significant shift in how democracy is practiced and perceived. Under the progressive communist Democrats, we see the locus of power and decision-making move from the consensus of individuals to the consensus of institutions. This transformation could be described as the rise of the “consent of the governors.”

The Continuing Shift to Institutional Consensus

Institutions—governmental bodies, international organizations, or private corporations—have always played a vital role in shaping society. But in modern democracies, their influence has grown to the point where they often set the agenda, define policy options, and even shape public opinion. Several factors drive this shift:

• Complexity of Governance: As societies become more complex, the issues they face—such as climate change, economic globalization, and technological disruption—require expertise and coordination that surpass the capacity of the average citizen. Institutions are increasingly seen as the best equipped to address these challenges with their specialized knowledge and resources.
• Institutional Trust vs. Public Distrust: While trust in traditional democratic processes and elected officials has eroded in many parts of the world, institutions (such as central banks, courts, and regulatory agencies) are often viewed as more stable and reliable. This trust in institutions, however, comes at the cost of sidelining public input and reducing the transparency of decision-making processes.
• Globalization and Supranational Governance: In an interconnected world, many decisions are made at the global or regional level through institutions like the European Union, the United Nations, or the World Trade Organization. These bodies operate with a degree of autonomy from direct public oversight, further shifting the balance of power from individuals to institutions.
• Corporate Influence and Public-Private Partnerships: The growing influence of large corporations and the blurring lines between the public and private sectors have also contributed to this shift. Through lobbying and public-private partnerships, corporate entities and industry groups often have a significant say in policy decisions, reflecting a form of governance by consent among influential stakeholders rather than the broader populace.

Implications of This Shift

The movement from a democracy based on the consent of the governed to one focused on the consent of the governors has profound implications:

• Erosion of Public Agency: As decision-making is increasingly centralized within institutions, the average citizen’s role in shaping policy diminishes. This can lead to feelings of disenfranchisement and apathy, weakening the very foundation of democratic governance.
• Institutional Accountability: While institutions may possess expertise, their accountability to the public is often limited. Decisions made behind closed doors can lack transparency, leading to policies that serve the interests of a few rather than the many.
• Redefinition of Legitimacy: Traditional democratic legitimacy comes from the electoral process and public participation. However, as institutions gain power, legitimacy is increasingly derived from expertise, efficiency, and outcomes—criteria that may not always align with the will of the people.
• Reframing Democracy for the Modern Age is little more than deconstructing our representative republic and capitalist economic system for an authoritarian society akin to that in Communist China. 

Bottom line…

The progressive communist democrats would have you believe that freedom and democracy are not static concepts but concepts and constructs that evolve with the times. They view the Constitution and Bill of Rights not as restrictions on government power but as enabling authority to control every aspect of American lives to benefit society as a whole. And that society encompasses individuals and institutions outside our borders.

As we speak, the progressive communist democrats are setting the groundwork for challenging electors, state by state, the very action they circumvented with their January “Fedsurrection.”

To say we are well and truly screwed if we fail to capture unassailable majorities in Congress and succumb to progressive communist democrat lawfare is an understatement.

-- Steve