Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, either has trouble filling his air time, or he has a serious sadistic streak. Or, maybe he wants to add humor, and not-too-thinly-veiled ridicule to his, usually serious repartee. I did not know whether to laugh or cry when he interviewed Peter Schurman, involved with MoveOn.org, a San Francisco-based, non-profit, political activist group, founded by two entertainment-software entrepreneurs.
MoveOn was organized in 1998, to oppose the impeachment of Bill Clinton over his handling of Monica Lewinsky. They support liberal causes (anti-war, anti-SUV, anti-Bush, Pro-Michael Moore, Pro-Obama, Pro-Obama, Pro-Bernie Sanders) with fund-raising and virtual petitioning.
Mr Schurman joined MoveOn in 2001 as its first salaried employee. His MBA from Yale is an academic achievement, but this new thesis would make any dean groan, and any John Lennon fan cheer.
One Global Democracy is an idea whose time is never. Their website starts off, “SAN FRANCISCO, CA, November 29, 2017 — A small group of highly credentialed progressive leaders have announced in a video a new movement for One Global Democracy ..”
The tenet: eliminate all national borders (“Imagine there’s no countries,”) and give each person one vote (“Imagine all the people sharing all the world”). Allow anyone in the world to go to any other place in the world to live (“A brotherhood of man”).
I would like to see him make this concept work on one block where he lives in San Francisco. A few hundred homeless people would add appropriately to the mix of people living and working there. (Imagine all the people living life in peace”)
They offer a video that is supposed to explain the idea and how it can work. They ask for donations to fund the effort.
I watched it. Circular logic, logical gaps, vague references, and not one working model of getting everyone to work together to solve problems. (“Imagine all the people living for today”) What would be a quorum? How long would the voting stay open?
This group of “highly credentialed progressives” are clueless. They propose to give everyone an anonymous voting account and have everyone vote on every issue. (“And the world will be as one”) Sounds like “Animal Farm,” to me. Let’s look at this idea from eight perspectives:
- Knowledge, skills, and understanding – Where do we have citizens of the world who know enough and understand the mechanisms to solve problems and set rules? How many problems does the world have? Who can know all that?
- Agreement – Couples disagree; juries of 12 people cannot always agree on one issue. How would this system find agreement among 7.5 billion people who do not share culture or language? How can someone in Africa know answers on any local or global need or solution?
- Majority rules – Africans may become the majority population of the world by 2100. Who could end the tyranny of the majority? How would we keep minorities from resisting egregious, burdensome discrimination? What if the majority is wrong and makes bad choices based on superstition, rumor, and gossip? What would be the common language? Chinese? Who would do the translations? How would we handle issues such as gay marriage? Abortion? Euthanasia? Civil rights? Energy?
- Resources – how would resources be acquired, and allocated among areas and people? Who would pay taxes? What jobs would survive?
- Infrastructure – Would the whole world have to agree to build a bridge or highway in Bangladesh? How could it get done if approved? What if the majority changed their minds half way through the project? How would public safety work? Health care? Finance? Agriculture? Education? Justice?
- Economics – If resources were evenly distributed, where would communities get the money for local schools? If skilled and unskilled, educated and uneducated people were paid equally, is that not communism? (a failed concept) Would Americans be willing to give up 85% of their belongings and money to equalize Africans in poverty. (read Do Americans Really Want Economic Equality? – Not Beyond Our Borders)
- Ideology – Could the dominant religion force their beliefs on everyone else? Could women subjugate men? Could children rule adults? Could tribes require everyone join one or the other tribes? What about sworn enemies and long-standing disputes?
- Leadership – How would we choose leaders? – “friends” or “likes?” How would we manage and coordinate in natural and man-made crises? Who would set the agenda and propositions?
I could go on, but why should I? This naïve notion that democracy answers all questions and needs is useless and worthless. How many countries, and how many people do not live in democracies? Why should they change? How have they managed all these eons without an 18th century innovation?
Most of the world has no idea of plurality. Why should they prefer democracy to the structure they have now? Civilization evolved to meet the conditions of life. Witness the mayhem in the Middle East where we have imposed democracy. Ethnic and religious strongmen immediately launched deadly, exhausting conflicts to take control. Consider Africa, the Balkans, and Venezuela. Civilization is not uniform or universal.
MoveOn’s self-styled, credentialed Olympians have not thought beyond selfie fund raising, as the TV interview revealed. Please, progressives, do not let these people seduce or represent you.
Their fantasies do make a pretty song though (John Lennon, Imagine).