The Limits of Dependency: How the Democrats Were Foiled by the True Nature of Man

by Warren Ross

By all their expectations, the Democrats did not have to even get to the current point of having to steal the Presidential election by subjective recounting. They had everything in the bag in Florida. They had planned and then executed the most massive voter registration campaign in history. They had armies of advocates relentlessly calling voters in Democrat-leaning districts. In order to help all the newly registered voters implement their newly obtained status, Democrats got them to the polls – by buses, trains, even driving them, when necessary. During these trips the Democratic party helpers carefully explained to the new voters whom to vote for. It seemed like nothing could go wrong.

The Republicans, for their part, had (as campaigns always have) voter registration programs. But the Republicans, if news stories are any guide, had more of the traditional program. They had nothing like the all-out full-court press attributed to the Democrats.

Then it seemed that all the plans of the Democrats had gone awry. The new voters made mistakes in punching their ballots, and even worse, lots of them didn’t vote for anyone at all in the Presidential race. This must, according to the Democratic leadership, be due to inaccurate counting or a confusing ballot (hence all the legal activity subsequent to the election).

But not everyone finds the outcome surprising. If we simply ask the Democrats a few simple questions, it might be possible that another cause for the outcome emerges. For example: Dear Democrat, your philosophy for decades has been that human beings are pitiful creatures that need your help (and the government’s) to survive and have a decent life. People, in your opinion, can’t think for themselves and hence they have to be guided by your superior wisdom. You explain things to them when possible, manipulate them otherwise. Mostly, you plunder the producers in the country to “help” these underprivileged. You make them complete dependents. You want them to go to you for everything, and you’re very willing to help them achieve what you know is best for them. In this case, you know that having Al Gore in the White House is best for them, so you help them achieve that end by escorting them to the voting booth. Now, why, dear Democrat, do you expect that any individual who is willing to be herded around and helped by you in this way would have the independent capacity to do things right in the one place where you can’t go with him – the voting booth? Why do you think that doing everything for a person won’t strip him of his ability to engage in independent thought? Why do you think that someone who has to be led by the nose would even care about such a large issue as the Presidential race? He might be able to muster some mild enthusiasm for the dogcatcher race, or maybe even local Mayor – but President? That’s so abstract, so far from his backyard or his slum or his sewer. What can it have to do with him? Or perhaps all those no votes were protests by men with some spark of independence, who don’t like being told what to do?

None of these explanations would seem too plausible to the Democrats, so they have to bare their hatred of industrial society by attacking the machines that count the votes.

Regardless, however, of which of the explanations for the no votes is correct, the fact remains that the Democratic view of man as helpless and in need of “guidance” and coercion by the intellectuals is false. The Democrats do their best to create dependents, and precisely to the extent that they succeed they produce men who are of no value to them if they leave such men any opportunity or requirement at all to think for themselves. Our system, fortunately, does not allow the intellectuals to accompany voters into the voting booth. It is based on the exact opposite philosophy of man – that he can think and act for himself, that he can learn how to think if he doesn’t start out with the ability, that he is an autonomous individual who doesn’t belong to any herd. The only thing that the designers of that system didn’t foresee is the systematic erosion of men’s independent thinking in practice by decades of brainwashing with the opposite philosophy. But whether they could foresee this erosion or not they were right about human nature. And one aspect of that human nature is the consequence of trying to deny and stifle it.

Comments are closed.