Soviet-born comedian Yakov Smirnoff used to tell a joke about choice in the USSR. “In Soviet Union, there are two television stations,” he said (I’m paraphrasing). “Channel One is government propaganda.”
Channel Two is a man wagging his finger and sternly saying, “Turn back to Channel One!”
With respect to elections, Western pseudo-elites today do aim to offer more choice: numerous “Channel Ones” — that is, any establishment candidate your heart desires.
Here in the United States, for example, there’s the effort to ban President Trump from the ballot. And in Germany, the establishment is thinking really big: They want to ban a whole party — the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD, Alternative for Germany).
The AfD’s supposed “sins” are that it opposes immigration, is critical of Islam and the European Union, espouses nationalism, and doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. Its real trespass, though, some would contend, concerns the shock it has delivered to the establishment:
It’s now the most popular single party in Germany.
The pseudo-elites may be frightened, too. In late November, “anti-Islam populist” Geert Wilders sent a “shockwave” through Europe, wrote the AP, by winning the general election in the Netherlands. Around the same time, libertarian Javier Milei jarred the establishment by registering a surprising run-off victory in Argentina’s presidential election. And to avoid a similar outcome in Germany, the leader of the Social Democrat Party (SPD) has apparently decided that if you can’t beat ’em, ban ’em.
That leader, Saskia Esken, says she’s concerned about the AfD’s “anti-democratic rhetoric,” as State of the Union (SotU) puts it.
Somewhat equivalent to the United States’ Democrats, the SPD has been one of Germany’s two major parties since 1949. But the AfD has recently leapfrogged the SPD in the polls to, again, become the nation’s most popular single party. This ascent has “sparked discussions about potential bans and constitutional amendments to prevent the AfD from coming to power,” writes SotU.
As Esken stated, “Such a party ban is rightly subject to high hurdles. But I am convinced that we should keep reviewing it,” SotU continues.
The irony here is that the SPD was itself once banned — by Adolf Hitler in 1933.
Whether Esken would call for her own Enabling Act to effect this today with the AfD was not reported.
This isn’t to equate the SPD with the Nazis, mind you; that would be inaccurate.
Rather, the SPD was founded in 1875 “primarily as a Marxist organisation,” relates Alpha History, and later helped create the “Socialist International,” which endeavors to establish “democratic socialism” worldwide. The SPD did leave the Socialist International in 2013, however (at which point it founded the “Progressive Alliance”), complaining that, among other things, the group was accepting “undemocratic” members.
This brings us back to Esken. “It is important that we talk about banning the AfD and that voters are shaken up,” SotU also quotes her as saying. What she meant by “shaken up” was not specified. Is this like grabbing a disobedient child who refuses to bend to your will and exclaiming, “I just want to shake you!”?
Whatever the case, the irony of eliminating democratic choice to “Save Democracy™” was not lost on observers. As news outlet Breitbart tweeted:
Reacting to this, respondent “Florence” wrote, “It is exactly what Democrats are doing in US. They are going to send Trump to prison. Good luck to these ‘democratic’ countries. No longer [do] they need to pretend being otherwise.”
Oh, and those who believe Trump is only targeted because he’s a “threat to democracy” should know that “Joe Biden will be the only candidate on multiple state primary ballots for the upcoming 2024 presidential election after state Democratic parties worked to undermine his challengers,” the Daily Caller reported last Thursday.
Given this, is it any wonder that presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., now running as an Independent, said while still a Democrat in October, “My party has lost its way”?
Moreover, need we wonder why, in 2020, late radio giant Rush Limbaugh asserted in a now-famous monologue that the Democrats (and, by extension, leftists in general) “resent the whole premise behind elections”? He continued:
Look, they don’t believe they should have to persuade anybody to agree with them. Therefore, they don’t believe in campaigns. They don’t believe in the free, open exchange of ideas. There aren’t any legitimate ideas outside of their own.
They don’t believe in giving legitimacy to anybody who is not already on their side…. They want power simply to have it. They don’t want it to derive from the people.
… They can’t persuade a majority of people.
They can’t persuade a majority of Americans to support Black Lives Matter. They can’t persuade a majority of Americans to support burning down American cities and private property. They can’t persuade a majority of Americans to go along with their ideas on guns and eliminating free speech.
… Those are things they’re gonna have to force on people, and they are more than willing and eager to force that stuff on you, but they need the power to do it. So they have to go through the motions [of campaigning].
But they resent the hell out of it. And in their world, it’s the one thing standing in their way: This need, this requirement to win elections. And I’m just telling you: As soon as they can figure out a way to eliminate elections, they will do it.
So whether at issue is the Democrats, the SPD, or some other left-wing party, have they really “lost their way?”
Or, are they just showing their true colors because self-government is getting in their way?
