Opinion
Globalist elites around the world are trying to ‘protect democracy’ by eliminating right leaning competition
Marine Le Pen of the National Rally Party in France has been completely vilified by the establishment
From LifeSiteNews
By Emily Finley
The classic definition of democracy is ‘rule by the people’. The elites have a new definition of ‘democracy,’ denoting democracy as hypothetical ideal.
Many are calling the present political turmoil in Europe a crisis of democracy. The German establishment is trying to ban the right-wing AfD Party for its alleged desire to return Germany to fascism. In France, the progressives are doing their darndest to hamstring conservative Marine Le Pen and her National Rally Party after they won the first round of the French elections. And in Romania, the Constitutional Court just nullified the results of a presidential election because the “right wing” victor ostensibly benefited from Russian “election interference.”
But which definition of “democracy” are we talking about? For the establishment leaders, the AfD, the National Rally Party, and Calin Georgescu are threats to democracy. For the supporters of these right-of-center parties and politicians, the progressive authorities are the threat to democracy.
It is time we make a clear distinction between these two varieties of “democracy” that we are told are in crisis.
The classic definition of democracy is “rule by the people” and indicates a concrete form of government. There is another definition of “democracy,” in currency among many elites, denoting democracy as hypothetical ideal. I call this ideological understanding “democratism.”
Populists worry about the survival of the former kind of democracy. The establishment worries about the survival of democratism.
On what basis do establishment leaders argue that excluding popularly elected parties and representatives of the people saves democracy? And that nullifying the results of a democratic election is in the name of democracy? There is, in fact, in America and Western Europe and its colonial satellites a tradition of conceiving of democracy as an ideal rather than the actual will of the people. Jean-Jacques Rousseau outlined this new understanding of democracy in his Social Contract in 1762. He argues that democracy is not the expressed will of the people but rather its ideal will, which he calls the General Will. Because the people are often uninformed, inclined to self-interest, and generally too narrow-minded to see the whole picture, they often deviate from that which is in their true interest, which is synonymous with the General Will. Therefore, an all-knowing and all-powerful Legislator must midwife the General Will into existence, even against the wishes of the people. If the people were to look deep down, Rousseau insists, they would see that the Legislator’s General Will really is their own individual will.
How often do we hear that those who voted for Donald Trump did not really know what was in their best interest? That they were duped? Or that the results of a popular election in Europe in which a “far right” candidate won was due to “interference” or social media misinformation adulterating the results of the election? Headlines and academic articles about this or that politician or political measure or social media platform subverting democracy to “save it” are too numerous to count.
It turns out that an entirely different notion of democracy, the one elaborated by Rousseau, is under discussion. For Rousseau as well as our own elite ministers of democracy, pluralism, coalition governments, compromise as imagined by the American founders, and genuine tolerance of opposing viewpoints are like so many defeats for “democracy” of the democratist variety.
Under democratism, there can be but one Public Will, which is identical to the will of the establishment elites. That a genuine plurality of legitimate political viewpoints could exist is inconceivable. John Rawls confirmed this Rousseauean interpretation of democracy with his Theory of Justice, which states outright that certain viewpoints are outside of the bounds of liberal democracy (as he conceives of it). This enormously influential work has largely set the tone for democratic studies inside and outside of the academy.
The concept of “democratic backsliding” is along these same lines. Backsliding from what? From the hypothetical ideal as conceived by the academicians and foreign policy establishment. The highly theoretical, democratist interpretation of democracy has now become the norm for many of our thought leaders.
In the face of legitimate popular grievances with the status quo, ruling elites are canceling elections, shutting down social media accounts, and using lawfare to take down political opponents. This makes clear that when these elites talk about “democracy,” they’re not talking about rule by the people.
How will this tension between the elites and the people be resolved? Handing down goals of “carbon neutrality,” ideological notions of “gender equality,” spreading democracy abroad, and other abstractions only further distances the elite from ordinary people who are concerned with high consumer prices, the abominable state of public education for their kids, and big hurdles to homeownership. Trump put his finger on the pulse, and he won the election because of it. The ascendency of populist and anti-establishment parties in Europe indicates that the same is happening there.
As the ruling elites continue to take repressive measures against their political opponents, we will see an increase in the rift between them and the people they claim to represent. If modern history is any indicator, a ruling body acting in its own interest and against the body politic will not enjoy power for long.
By Ken Macon
AI-driven surveillance is shifting from spotting suspects to mapping ordinary life, turning everyday travel into a stream of behavioral data
|
|
U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan declared a mistrial Monday afternoon in the high-profile foreign-agent and corruption case against former New York state official Linda Sun and her husband Chris Hu, after jurors reported they were hopelessly deadlocked on all 19 counts.
After restarting deliberations Monday morning with an alternate juror, the panel sent a note to Judge Cogan stating:
“Your honor, after extensive deliberations and redeliberations the jury remains unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The jurors’ positions are firmly held.”
Cogan brought the jury into court and asked the foreman whether they had reached agreement on any counts. They replied that they were deadlocked on every one. The judge then declared a mistrial.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Solomon immediately told the court that the government intends to retry the case “as soon as possible.” A status conference is scheduled for January 26, 2026, to determine next steps.
Jury selection began November 10, 2025, and the government called 41 witnesses to the stand, compared with eight for the defense and one rebuttal witness for the prosecution. Deliberations began on December 12, and by this afternoon the jurors had sent three notes to the court — each indicating deadlock.
As The Bureau reported in its exclusive analysis Friday, the panel’s fracture had become visible as jurors headed into a second week of deliberations in a landmark foreign-agent and corruption trial that reached into two governors’ offices — a case asking a jury of New Yorkers to decide whether Sun secretly served Beijing’s interests while she and Hu built a small business and luxury-property empire during the pandemic, cashing in on emergency procurement as other Americans were locked down.
Prosecutors urged jurors to accept their account of a dense web of family and Chinese-community financial transactions through which Sun and Hu allegedly secured many millions of dollars in business deals tied to “United Front” proxies aligned with Beijing. The defense, by contrast, argued that Sun and Hu were simply successful through legitimate, culturally familiar transactions, not any covert scheme directed by a foreign state.
Sun and Hu face 19 charges in total, including allegations that Sun acted as an unregistered foreign agent for the People’s Republic of China; visa-fraud and alien-smuggling counts tied to a 2019 Henan provincial delegation; a multimillion-dollar pandemic PPE kickback scheme; bank-fraud and identity-misuse allegations; and multiple money-laundering and tax-evasion counts.
Prosecutors have argued that the clearest money trail ran through New York’s COVID procurement scramble and a pair of Jiangsu-linked emails. In closing, Solomon told jurors that Sun’s “reward” for steering contracts was “millions of dollars in kickbacks or bribes,” contending the money was routed through accounts opened in Sun’s mother’s name and via friends and relatives.
The government has tied those claims to a broader narrative — laid out in Solomon’s summation and dissected in The Bureau’s reporting — that Sun functioned as a “trusted insider” who repurposed state access and letterhead to advance Beijing’s priorities, including by allegedly forging Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature on invitation letters used for Chinese provincial delegations, while keeping those relationships hidden from colleagues. The defense, in turn, urged jurors to reject the government’s picture of clandestine agency and argued prosecutors had overreached by treating ordinary diaspora networking, trade promotion, and pandemic procurement as criminal conduct — insisting none of the evidence proved the “direction or control” element central to the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Whether a future jury will see the same evidence as corruption and covert foreign agency or as culturally familiar commerce and politics — will now be tested again, on a new timetable, in a courtroom that has already shown just how difficult this record is to unanimously interpret.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Residential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
Canada Hits the Brakes on Population
RFK Jr reversing Biden-era policies on gender transition care for minors
Canadian gov’t considers sharing census data on gender-confused children
Brown University shooter dead of apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound
Paris Climate Deal Now Decade-Old Disaster
Deadlocked Jury Zeroes In on Alleged US$40 Million PPE Fraud in Linda Sun PRC Influence Case
-
Uncategorized1 day agoMortgaging Canada’s energy future — the hidden costs of the Carney-Smith pipeline deal
-
Business2 days agoThere’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…
-
International1 day agoAustralian PM booed at Bondi vigil as crowd screams “shame!”
-
Opinion2 days agoReligion on trial: what could happen if Canada passes its new hate speech legislation
-
Automotive20 hours agoCanada’s EV gamble is starting to backfire
-
Agriculture18 hours agoEnd Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers
-
Alberta16 hours agoAlberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works
-
Business6 hours ago
Judge Declares Mistrial in Landmark New York PRC Foreign-Agent Case