'WaPo': Brexit Shows Some Things Shouldn't Be Decided by the People
It has been absolutely delicious to watch the American media melt down since last week's Brexit vote. Nothing terrifies liberal elitists more than an aware and energized electorate. The MSM fears the rise of a voting class that doesn't march to its orders, and they fear this Brexit stuff will spread.
At least they're being honest about the end game now, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
While the original article headline used the less offensive "shoulddn't be decided by referendum," the Post's tweet was a lot more forthcoming:
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 27, 2016
The author of the article earnestly makes the case that in places like the United States and Great Britain we elect people to legislatures to handle these things for us. In a perfect world, we could trust said representation. In the United States, especially at the federal level, legislating has become a career path that almost inevitably sees our elected officials representing themselves more than their constituents (John McCain comes to mind).
There's the dilemma: should the same people who keep electing legislators who don't adequately represent them be allowed to vote on referenda?
I don't know how things work in the British Parliament (although they make for great television), but I do know that the legislative process here in the U.S. has been perverted to a point where we shouldn't trust Congress with keys to a toy car, let alone our futures. Backroom deals are made in which all manner of unrelated items are couched in bills and used as chits to be redeemed later. Omnibus bills arrive wordy, are barely debated, then voted on without being read. Almost all have dire longterm consequences for American citizens. As we saw with Obamacare, Congress can exempt itself and many of its biggest financial supporters from those consequences.
Every once in a while the people need to be able to run an end-around.
While the author pretends to worry about the voters dealing with issues that are too far-ranging and complex, her faux concern for what's best for the country is quickly undone by two things: the liberal belief in elected officials as a smarter class, and her inability to hide her own leftist snobbery:
Last year's Supreme Court decision upholding gay marriage also underscored another drawback of referendums: Give people a chance at the ballot box, and they may also trample minority rights.
See, it's not really about advocating for leaving things up to the legislative branch, it's a general, "Well, we're just better off when we bypass the hoi polloi and their pesky ballot boxes altogether."
There are messy consequences to elections, whether they be about ballot propositions or candidates. What the coastal media elite in America are rending garments about these past few days is that the messiness ran counter to their desires. The easiest way for them to stop that is to make sure that they keep chipping away at the various liberties that make freedom messy.