Is America Ready for the One-Party State?
That is the question that everyone who goes to the polls or mails or drops off their ballot – unfortunately, millions of people have already voted, their minds already made up, apparently, even as vital information continues to come in – should be asking. Is America ready for the one-party state? The danger of that is more than real – it is imminent – should the Democratic Party gain control of the House, the Senate, and the White House in these elections.
How do we know? The party’s leaders, such as they are, both actual and ad hoc, have told us that is their intent. There is no room for lower categories of people, such as rural dwellers, Republicans, or <gasp> Trumpites in the elitist, “progressive” America they foresee and are planning for you.
Before we parse how this outcome might come about, let’s consider how bad an idea this is. And it is.
The one-party state: A very bad idea
One-party states aren’t a new idea, but they have proven to be a universally bad idea wherever the concept has been (and in some cases, still is) implemented. When we think of one-party states, we think of Communist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, Cuba, the PRC, North Korea, and a number of formerly Communist satellite countries in Eastern and Central Europe and Central Asia. Or we think of totalitarian dictatorships, such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan. But there have been plenty of lesser-known examples, especially in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.
The idea of the one-party state was widely touted as an embodiment of “national unity” in the initial post-Colonial stage of many former European colonies, particularly in Africa, though also elsewhere around the world. In Africa, they were based on the traditional African concept of consensus, where decisions were to be taken by universal agreement. Some were based on the power of the “strong man,” and were justified as ways of organizing otherwise disorderly societies. But wherever and whenever they have existed, what single-party states amounted to were kleptocracies where the ruling elites were able to bleed their countries dry, enriching themselves and their own tribes, families, or party powerful, impoverishing and repressing the bulk of their populations.
While far from extinct, the general trend worldwide has been away from the one-party state. For instance, a map of one-party states on the African, Asian, and South American continents reveals far fewer of them than existed just 30 or 40 years ago. There are some examples where things went the wrong way, such as Venezuela, but in general the trend has been away from them. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is that they are dysfunctional, and eventually are either rejected by the population through political pressure or overthrown violently. In some cases – Taiwan and South Korea come to mind – the one-party dictatorship yielded to a multiparty democracy as their economies and political consciousness grew. We see similar cases in a number of formerly Communist countries in Europe, though the transition there took place much more suddenly than in Asia, where it required decades of transformation and evolution.
In the United States, we gravitated to essentially a two-party system, with a smattering of small and largely ineffectual third parties, and this has been the pattern for most of the country’s history. But there are examples of essentially single-party rule in the United States, too. There was the “Solid South” in which Democrats ruled all the Southern States from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A key element of that one-party state was Jim Crow and disenfranchisement of blacks across the region.
In contemporary times, there is the one-party stranglehold exercised by the Democratic Party over most large cities in the country. Depending on machine and identity politics, there hasn’t been a Republican mayor or administration elected in these cities in anywhere from a half century to a century and a half. During this time, poverty, crime, maladministration, and corruption have all festered in most of these Democrat-controlled cities. For more on this version of the one-party state, I urge you to read my piece Back to the Plantation, which details the deleterious effects single-party rule has had and how it depends on maintaining a permanent underclass, and includes links documenting all these realities.
Whether in Africa or in Chicago, Asia or Baltimore, Latin America or Detroit, it is a kleptocracy that this kind of single-party rule creates, fosters, and entrenches, at enormous cost to the bulk of the population.
If you want to see the results of one-party rule at the state level, one need look no further than California, which has become essentially a one-party vassal state of the Democratic Party. Despite it possessing one of the largest economies in the world and being home to powerful Big Tech, it also has the distinction of possessing (according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure) the highest poverty rate in the country, six of the 10 least educated cities in the country, two of the 10 most dangerous cities in the country, a number of the worst-run cities in the nation, and the biggest homeless population of any state. So-called sanctuary cities provide protection to illegal aliens, including violent criminal offenders, while prejudicing against protecting law-abiding citizens. And to achieve these remarkable accomplishments, the state has the highest state tax rate in the nation and enormously onerous regulations. There shouldn’t be any wonder why Californians are fleeing the Golden State in droves, sadly, in too many cases, taking their stupid ideas with them.
But California is exactly the model that the Democratic Party has in mind to transform the rest of the country into. Are you ready for it? Let’s look now how they intend to accomplish this.
How the Dems plan to turn the country into a one-party state
None of this is a mystery. All of these steps have either been specifically stated by leading Dems, or – as in the case of Presidential candidate Jell-O Joe Biden and his running mate and President-apparent Kamala Harris – telegraphed by refusing to tell the American public what is planned. In their refusal to answer the question, they’re telling you what is planned. Dem Senatorial Leader Chuck Schumer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the real power in the House (both of New York, another near-one-party disastrous state) both have said that all options are on the table.
“It will be a decision that comes to the Senate,” Schumer has said. “We first have to win the majority before that can happen . . . but everything is on the table.”
So what is on the table and what decisions do Schumer and AOC have in mind? These:
Eliminating the Senate filibuster: For most votes to pass the Senate, it takes 60 votes due to the ability of either party to filibuster any given bill. This comes under what is known as the Cloture Rule. That is a big part of why deliberation can go in much longer and take more compromise for legislation to pass the Senate than the House. But by various means, including majority vote, the filibuster can be eliminated. Known as “the nuclear option,” this would allow Dems, even holding a narrow majority in the chamber, to take it over absolutely. If they also hold the House and the White House, anything they do is virtually guaranteed to pass and become reality.
Adding new states to the Union: Under Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution, Congress can pass legislation admitting new states to the Union. With a majority in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President, the way would be open to add the District of Columbia (long a Dem issue and Dem stronghold) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (another Dem stronghold) as the 51st and 52nd states. And there wouldn’t be anything to stop them from adding other territories, such as American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as states, if they thought it would benefit them politically. The idea would be to add two new (ostensibly Democrat) senators from each new state.
To give you some idea how crazed some of these people are, there actually is a proposal to carve D.C. Into anywhere between 127 and 150 neighborhoods, and admit each as a separate state. This isn’t a satire in The Onion, for instance, but an idea put forth in a serious article published in the Harvard Law Review. With all these new Democrat senators, the way would be cleared to completely alter America’s electoral process, including elimination of the Electoral College, transferring the Senate’s power to a new body where all citizens have equal representation, and an alteration of the Constitutional amendment process to ensure that amendments can be made by states representing the majority of Americans. This lunacy is presented as “a modest proposal to save American democracy.” Never mind that America’s Constitution and the representational republic as a union of sovereign states it created have served the nation for 233 years. These crazy liberal law professors have a better idea. Can’t you see it? And you wonder why radicalized college kids are burning down the cities?
Elimination of the Electoral College: An adjunct to the idea of adding new states to the Union is eliminating the Electoral College. As anyone educated in Constitutional matters knows, the President of the United States is not elected directly by the people, but rather by the states, as represented by electors sent to the Electoral College. Each state decides how those electors are allotted. In some states, it’s “winner takes all” of the popular vote. In others, they’re apportioned according to the proportion of votes won by each candidate. Various restraints on the behavior of electors to vote independent of the vote of their state have been imposed by courts and legislatures, but in the end, these are the people who choose the President. While it might seem like a good idea to eliminate the Electoral College, what will result is that a few big states will wind up dominating the rest of the country, more than they do, anyway. Given the huge differences in values between residents of the various states, the end result might suppress any chance of the smaller states, and their residents, to have any real influence on the nation. The Founding Fathers were clear in their desire to avoid a “tyranny of the majority” (in the words of James Madison) through creation of a republic and a representative form of democracy. There is an expression that a democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner, and protection of minority rights is essential if freedom is to be preserved in the U.S.
Packing the Supreme Court: What “packing,” in this case, means, is adding additional justices to the Supreme Court. Neither the Constitution nor any law sets the number of Supreme Court justices. Since it was established in 1789 with six justices, the High Court has varied from a low of five to a high of 10 justices. It has had nine justices since Congress set that number in 1869. An odd number avoids tie votes. Now, upset with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett by President Donald Trump to fill the vacancy created by the death of long-time liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who herself opposed packing the Court), the Dems are openly talking about adding additional justices – “packing the Court” – that would be appointed by a Democratic President and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. The last time this ploy was attempted was in 1937 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, reelected by a large majority in 1936, attempted to add additional justices to counter the existing justices who had been ruling against parts of his New Deal legislation. The move proved tremendously unpopular and failed, and it was viewed as what it was: An undemocratic power grab. Make no mistake: The current Democratic talk of packing the Court, adding several new justices to it, is no less of an undemocratic power grab.
When asked whether voters deserved to know his position on packing the Court, Joe Biden’s answer was clear: “No they don’t.” It shows what Biden, and his party, thinks of voters, and anyone stupid enough to accept that attitude and answer will get what they deserve should Biden be elected.
Those four changes, by themselves, would be sufficient to create a one-party state in the U.S., with the now-radical Democratic Party ruling the country. Add the near-complete sell out of the mass media and social media in support of the Party, and we’re looking at a Chinese-style totalitarian state.
Are you ready for it?
How far off is this?
I was asked this question recently, how long might it take for the Democrats to create this one-party state. The person asked me how many years it would take to implement. He was surprised when I answered that, if the Dems win the House, Senate, and White House in the elections already under way, we are probably months, not years, away from it. I don’t envisage any delay on the part of the rabid Democrats who now hold sway over the party. Given the absolute power of holding two of the three branches of government, no Constitutional constraints to their actions, what amounts to a supportive state media, and with their left flank biting at their heels, I expect the partisan power-hungry likes of a Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and AOC and the Squad to act very quickly and not to allow the opportunity to pass, as the opportunity was lost in the initial years of the Obama Administration when the Dems held both houses of Congress.
A lot has changed since 2008. The mass media and social media have even more clearly lined up as a partisan force, blinding much of the country to what really is going on. And the Democratic Party, both those elected to Congress as well as those pulling the strings behind the Biden-Harris candidacies, have become far more radical. Once they do away with the filibuster and exercise the nuclear option, any restraint they faced 12 years ago will be obliterated. And the rest will follow from that.
As I see it, the only thing standing between us and a one-party state is to vote against Democrats at every level, for every office, and most especially voting for Republican Senatorial and House candidates and for the re-election of the President. And that is coming from someone who has always considered himself a political independent (and still does) and someone who previously mostly voted for Democrats. Things have changed in the party, they have changed in the country, they have changed in me – and hopefully, if you voted for Democrats before, they have changed in you, too.
Otherwise, I have to again pose the question: Are you ready for the one-party state?
Coming Next: In my next posting I am going to outline why the RICO statute – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – can and should be applied to Joe Biden, the Biden family, the Democratic Party, several mass media and social media organizations, and specific individuals within them, given the organized conspiracy to commit and cover-up egregious criminal activities by Biden and the Biden family, for which clear evidence now exists. Stay tuned and watch this space.
Featured image: Blue America, University of Florida. Used under Fair Use.
