Well, not quite yet. But the growing and universally intractable hostility, intolerance, irreconcilability, and violence of the Left, both here and abroad, particularly in the face of electoral defeat, has that endgame scenario coming over the near horizon of plausibility:
On Thursday, an unexpectedly significant majority of British voters turned out to deliver Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservatives a landslide victory. The British electorate shocked the world by handing the Tories an outright majority in parliament, but the results in England and Wales stood in stark contrast to those in Scotland. There, the formerly dominant Labour Party was virtually wiped out in favor of the much more radically [communist] Scottish Nationalist Party. Whereas the general election results in England were seen as a mandate for prudence and restraint, SNP framed their election results as a mandate for [commun]ism and the end to the watered-down British version of economic austerity. The stage is set for conflict in the U.K.
A British civil war? With home-grown and imported Islamic Fundamentalists as the Left's shock troops, you have to admit it's possible.
But that conflict should not have resulted in violence. And yet, just hours after the votes had been cast and counted, a familiar band of infantile anarchists took to the streets to demonstrate aggressively against the conservative government.
Sound familiar?
Over the weekend, a deluge of student-age demonstrators armed with freshly printed signs promoting the “Socialist Worker” demanded that the Tories surrender the power their fellow countrymen and women granted them. It wasn't long before those demonstrations in front of 10 Downing Street grew violent.
“Hundreds of anti-government protesters, some holding placards reading ‘I pledge to resist’ and ‘Stop the cuts’, took part in the rally on Saturday, which began outside Conservative Party headquarters,” a BBC report read.
A republic (or parliamentary democracy) can only function, and ultimately survive, if all its citizens voluntarily submit to the same objective set of rules and laws. And nowhere is that more important than in accepting and abiding by election results. When one sides cheats, corruptly stacks the electoral deck in its own favor, it undermines the public's faith in its representative institutions and encourages the notion that the only way to effect genuine change - and for some politically-disfavored groups, to even be able to defend themselves - is to disregard "the system" and take more "direct" action. And, conversely, when the other side wins despite the first side's best and illicit and tyrannical efforts, and the latter refuses to accept defeat and continues the struggle by "extra-political" means, it encourages the realization that winning elections isn't enough, because the other side won't abide by their results. Either and both ways, freedom and liberty are eroded and undermined and ultimately overthrown, as order and security become imperatives - which can only work to the advantage of the Left.
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other," John Adams once wrote. Without the divine fruit of the spirit known as "self-control," sinful willfullness takes its place, and the latter knows no limits or boundaries. The inevitable result is violence, chaos, and....revolution.
Maybe not today. But how far off can it be, in the "Old World" and the New?
No comments:
Post a Comment