International
Globalist elites 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.
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Honda will produce its next-generation Civic in Indiana instead of Mexico, a strategic shift aimed at sidestepping potential tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration. The decision underscores the growing impact of the proposed 25% tariffs on automakers and global supply chains.
Key Details:
- Honda plans to build the next Civic model in Indiana, with production set to begin in May 2028, instead of the previously planned November 2027 start in Mexico.
- The Indiana plant is expected to produce around 210,000 Civics annually, according to sources familiar with the decision.
- Honda had initially planned to manufacture the vehicle in Guanajuato, Mexico, but rising costs and potential tariffs forced a strategic reassessment.
Diving Deeper:
Honda’s move signals a major shift in automotive manufacturing, as the Japanese automaker responds to potential 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada. The Trump administration’s proposed tariffs are aimed at bolstering U.S. manufacturing, a policy that has already prompted concerns and adjustments from global car companies.
Sources told Reuters that Honda had originally selected Mexico due to lower production costs. However, with the possibility of hefty tariffs disrupting supply chains, the company recalibrated its plans, opting for production in Indiana to ensure continued market stability in the United States, where it sold over 1.4 million vehicles last year.
Although Honda has not officially confirmed the decision, a company spokesperson emphasized that Honda is always evaluating its global production strategy based on market conditions. Given that approximately 40% of the vehicles Honda sells in the U.S. are imported from Mexico and Canada, this shift may be just the first of many adjustments the automaker makes to mitigate potential cost increases.
The Civic remains a crucial model for Honda, with U.S. sales jumping 21% last year. The decision to manufacture the next-generation model domestically reflects the broader industry trend of automakers reevaluating their supply chains in light of shifting trade policies.
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Miranda Devine pushes back against claims that 47th President Donald Trump “ambushed” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their Oval Office meeting, arguing that it was Zelensky who provoked the confrontation. Devine contends that Trump was “cordial” and intent on brokering peace, while Zelensky entered the meeting “in bad faith,” contradicting and interrupting the president before ultimately derailing the negotiations.
Key Details:
-
Devine asserts that Zelensky was “negative from the start,” contradicting Trump within minutes and repeatedly interrupting him in an “insolent” manner.
-
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Zelensky should have voiced concerns privately at a scheduled lunch instead of creating a public spectacle.
-
Trump’s detractors, according to Devine, are using this incident to fuel yet another “Russia hoax” in their ongoing attempts to discredit him.
Diving Deeper:
Miranda Devine, in her latest op-ed for the New York Post, refutes the mainstream media’s portrayal of 47th President Donald Trump’s recent Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as an “ambush.” Instead, she argues, it was Zelensky who instigated the confrontation by entering the meeting with “negative body language” and a “hostile attitude.”
“Trump could not have been more cordial,” Devine writes, emphasizing that Trump had successfully navigated complex negotiations to bring both Russia and Ukraine to a moment where peace seemed possible. But Zelensky, she asserts, was determined to sabotage that effort.
From the outset, Zelensky took a defiant tone, directly contradicting Trump’s assertion that Europe had provided far less financial support to Ukraine than the U.S. “President Trump said that they made less support, but they are our friends,” Zelensky interjected, attempting to downplay Trump’s concerns. When Trump reiterated his position, Zelensky repeatedly interrupted with “No, no, no.” Despite Trump’s attempt to keep the exchange lighthearted, the tension in the room was palpable.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later weighed in on the debacle, telling Fox News that “if Zelensky wanted to contradict Trump, the proper venue for that would have been 15 minutes later [at a private lunch].” Instead, Zelensky chose to grandstand before the press, leading to what Devine describes as the complete “blowing up” of the peace talks.
At the end of the meeting, Zelensky’s smirk and thumbs-up to someone off-camera left little doubt in Devine’s mind that he had orchestrated the confrontation deliberately. His ambassador, she noted, appeared distraught, watching the spectacle unfold “with her head in her hands.”
Devine sees a broader political game at play. She argues that the media and Trump’s political enemies have seized upon this incident to spin yet another “Russia hoax,” akin to the discredited Steele dossier, the first Trump impeachment over a call with Zelensky, and the “Laptop from Hell” censorship saga. “They could not tolerate that Trump… would be successful in ending the war,” Devine writes, suggesting that warmongers on both sides of the aisle needed this peace effort to fail.
Trump, for his part, did not let the moment pass without drawing a direct line to the Biden family’s corruption in Ukraine. He referenced Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, telling Zelensky: “It came out of Hunter Biden‘s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said… the ‘laptop from hell’ was made by Russia. The 51 agents. The whole thing was a scam.”
Despite his provocations, Zelensky was met with Trump’s signature diplomatic coolness. When Zelensky dismissed the minerals deal, a key component of Trump’s proposed peace framework, Trump did not lash out. Even when Zelensky warned that “your American soldiers will fight” if Ukraine failed, a “severe provocation” as Devine puts it, Trump remained composed.
Only after an extended barrage of Zelensky’s interruptions and dismissive tone did Vice President JD Vance finally respond, stressing that “the path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.” That set Zelensky off, leading Trump to finally push back. “We’re trying to solve a problem,” he told the Ukrainian leader. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel, because you’re in no position to dictate that.”
Now, with the negotiations shattered, the fate of Ukraine rests in Europe’s hands at an upcoming summit. “Ukraine can’t survive without America,” Devine warns, and Zelensky may soon realize that the stunt he pulled in the Oval Office cost him far more than he anticipated.
You can watch all 46 minutes of the February 28 meeting between Trump, Vance and Zelensky here.
War against the US? Chrystia Freeland says Canada, allies need to build ‘New World Order’ to combat Trump
Why carbon emissions will fall under Trump
Where’s the data on miscarriages linked to COVID Injections?
We need to get smart about climate
-
Opinion2 days agoLiberal leadership race guarantees Canadian voters will be guided by a clown show for a while yet
-
Business2 days agoElon Musk: ‘I’m getting a lot of death threats’ due to DOGE
-
Courageous Discourse1 day agoZelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump
-
Crime2 days agoCould the UK’s ‘Grooming Gangs’ operate in Canada?
-
Alberta2 days agoCan Trump Revive The Keystone Pipeline?
-
Energy2 days agoTrump’s tariffs made Ottawa suddenly start talking about new east-to-west pipelines, but how long will it last?
-
Canadian Energy Centre2 days ago‘Big vulnerability’: How Ontario and Quebec became reliant on U.S. oil and gas
-
Business2 days agoFederal government could save $10.7 billion this fiscal year by eliminating eight ineffective spending programs