dual democracy

This article was published in Bitcoin Magazine. “Main Problem”. click here To get an annual Bitcoin Magazine subscription.

“Every election is a kind of pre-auction of stolen goods.”

-HL Mencken

Sometimes voting is fake, sometimes it’s real. A coalition of elites gathers behind the scenes, and what appears before the cameras is a complex narrative dance of gauging public sentiment, which sometimes matches reality and often does not.

As America’s election engine picks up steam, many are questioning the point of it all. Events of the 21st century have shattered delicate notions of fairness in the halls of power, namely the assumption that state and industrial institutions will have priority in carrying out their functions. Corporations are pouring money into the bonfires to signal their compliance with the new global religion. Politicians thought more about how to extend the law to as many bribes as possible, forgetting why the law was proposed in the first place. In an effort to tone down its glaring incompetence, the government has lost its ability to tell the truth about even the simplest things.

The problems we face as a civilization are so existential and monumental that no one dares take responsibility. They put wallpaper and band-aids over cracks, hoping that the problem will outlast their careers and they won’t get caught up in fixing it. This situation has created an unprecedented crisis of trust. This has led to understandable cynicism about the results of our electoral system. This is justifiable. Because electoral politics has never worked the way ordinary citizens are told to understand.

The truth of the matter is that beyond a certain scale, all democracies are little more than oligarchys, complete with referendums on public sentiment and pretty wallpaper. Popularity often justifies power, but rarely exercises it.

“By organization we mean an oligarchy, whether an oligarchy of popularly elected leaders or an oligarchy of a politically dominant minority.”
– Robert Michels, “The Iron Law of Oligarchy.”

When there is an election, candidates compete in two separate races. One with the masses and one with the elites. It’s better to win both than one, but the past decade has shown that this is an option. Nothing illustrates this better than presidential primaries, where victory is relative and the prize is not always what it seems. If you look at candidates without constituencies, they are there for a reason, not to win a referendum.

When a political party has an incumbent or apparent presumptive candidate, other prospective candidates are there to convey ideas and statements to both the public and the candidates. Candidates without constituencies are like weapons and armor. They can make controversial statements by means of focus groups. That means the incumbent can test sentiment without risking flip-flopping or waffling by taking an unpopular position. These proxies can be used aggressively to ask tough questions that can solidify a candidate’s positions on issues that donors or lobbies support or oppose. This goes beyond the simple strategy of “splitting the vote” for the chosen winner, showing off one’s skills in hopes of a Cabinet position, or winning the vice president’s seat.

Looking critically at the actors on stage is one of the best ways to get a peek behind the curtain to understand what is limited for the politicians involved. Who do they attack? Who do they praise? Who are they involved with at all? Vivek Ramaswamy praises Trump and their PR and surrogate staff. What does it tell you? Which organizations or donors are issuing public support or donation statements? If you take the time to research and learn these things, you will begin to understand the competition within the competition. You are seeing the alliances and cabals of those in power and their families, and the “Great Game” is beginning to take shape before you.

“The free choice of the master does not abolish either master or slave.”
– Herbert Marcuse

Investigate these events and ask about the Latin proverb “Cui Bono?” (“Who benefits?”). Marianne Williamson is a candidate who either has no constituency or is having a lot of trouble raising money. Her campaign is clearly about raising her profile for book sales and increasing her appeal on Barnes & Noble shelves when the candidates’ names become known in the primaries. Politico Articles about her finances already dwindling suggest it was a self-funded publicity campaign. Serving as a proxy for her questions and grouping sensitive topics into focus is how she gets funding to expand that campaign.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made headlines for his legacy as American political royalty and his controversial comments. But he is a Democrat without a constituency. Who benefits from talking points that appeal more to cabals in the right-wing and liberal community than to their own political parties? I object to talking points that require seemingly organic excuses to respond to one’s remarks in order to build consensus. RFK himself benefits by raising his public profile, even when he really means what he says.

Of course, the headlines and posturing are mostly kayfabe for the masses. That is, an agreed-upon standard for the drama and events that play out between the contestants to keep the audience guessing and fighting. Nikki Haley and Will Hurd get nothing but epic goals for the CIA. Chris Christie is a man without purpose. Ron DeSantis is sabotaging his own rising star in a Pyrrhic war with Donald Trump over Ken Griffin’s advice and war chest. Ken Griffin appears to be abandoning him as his race falters and his reputation worsens. Whether anyone likes it or not, Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican Party candidate to remain on the ballot. This essentially causes his 17 competitors to throw chess pieces for someone else or make a cynical bid for self-promotion.

This dual contest, or “dual democracy,” is an approval mechanism that legitimizes predetermined, top-down decisions. Referendum at the ballot box ~can do Be honest. But only if both sides have enough elite backers. If you have the public on your side but no backers, you have no firepower to protect you from a political machine that rigs votes, a media that tells the public everything is natural, and a legal system that retaliates if you complain too much about it. If your enemies are powerful enough and know you don’t have an army of lawyers, they know they can’t do anything about the fraud.

But the opposite of this is also true. Every major event that happens in the United States revolves around gaining the support of a sufficiently large number of elites and institutions. Despite recent events, it is the lack of a unified elite position that has historically kept elections a little more honest. If the military-industrial complex supports one candidate and the pharmaceutical industry supports another, voting becomes more fair.

The problem we face now is a rapidly growing rift as the masses move in one direction and the elites move in the other and coalesce into two camps. Citizens are the weaker of the two, and as fiat debt Ponzi schemes become more dangerous, those who have assets to lose are more reticent than usual, unwilling to stick their necks out. They cling to each other like ants in a flood, looking for insulation from the approaching storm. Most don’t respond to even the worst insults because they don’t want to shake things up and risk retaliation. The rich and powerful, who fear retaliation as much as they attack, cowardly ride the storm and move in the direction from which the wind blows.

Because the truth of the matter is that this is more a casino than a country and the house always wins. Not all customers are groomed and there is a difference between being a card shark and playing slots. Each game has different odds, and the key to a good streak is learning how to play.

This article was published in Bitcoin Magazine. “Main Problem”. click here To get an annual Bitcoin Magazine subscription.