Politico Declares: U.S. Constitution Is Undemocratic

It’s become clear, at least to this writer, that the left in America is increasingly hell-bent on destroying the greatest country in the history of the world so they can turn it into a 21st century version of the Soviet Union.  They are doing this by inciting violence against anyone with political views that fall to the right of Josef Stalin and by making insane and outrageous claims.  One of the latest examples of this comes to us from Politico, in the form of an op-ed by Corey Robin, a “Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York Graduate Center.”

In an op-ed Robin published on January 5 at Politico, he argues that the Constitution — the central document that forms our government — is, wait for it, undemocratic.

You read that right.  According to Robin, the U.S. Constitution is undemocratic.

He states:

Driving the initiatives of the Republicans and the inertia of the Democrats are two forces. The first is the right’s project, decades in the making, to legally limit the scope and reach of democracy. The second is the Constitution, which makes it difficult for the national majority to act and easy for local minorities to rule. What happened on Jan. 6 is far less significant than what happened before Jan. 6 — and what has and has not happened since then.

For starters, Robin lies through his teeth when he falsely claims that Republicans are trying to “limit the scope and reach of democracy.”  That’s flat out bullsh*t, and Robin knows it.

But it doesn’t end there.

It’s this statement: “The second is the Constitution, which makes it difficult for the national majority to act and easy for local minorities to rule.”  It seems the so-called “distinguished professor of political science” forgot his history.  Or he conveniently chose to ignore it.  The founders were quite clear about the dangers of an overbearing majority (like the one we have now):

In the early years of the United States, John Adams and James Madison both recognized the danger of a potential tyranny of the majority and took action to prevent it from happening. In Adams’ 1788 work A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, he wrote that a government ruled by a unicameral elected body would be dangerous, and he argued instead for a mixed government with three separate branches. In the Federalist Papers, Madison discussed how an overbearing majority faction could take control of the government.

To limit the possibility of a tyranny of the majority in the United States, the framers of the Constitution established a government with checks and balances designed, they claimed, to prevent any one part of the government from becoming too powerful. Additionally, they made it more difficult for Congress to easily ignore the needs of minority groups by requiring the support of a supermajority for major decisions. They also added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to protect various individual rights of those in minority groups.

Further, the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College system to theoretically prevent presidential candidates from ignoring the needs of less populous states in favor of highly-populated ones.

In his closing paragraph of his anti-democratic screed, Robin states: “Democracy is not just the enemy of the Republican Party. It is also the enemy of the Constitution.”

He also slammed the Founding Fathers for not putting together a document that ensures the tyranny of the majority:

The division of Congress into two houses also reflects the Constitution’s antipathy to equal representation and majority rule. Too many states, Alexander Hamilton complained, are “governed by a single democratic assembly or have a senate constituted entirely upon democratic principles.” In unicameral legislatures, the democratic majority — described by James Madison as those who “labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings” — has too much power to pursue its “leveling” designs. If the legislature is divided in two, however, with an upper chamber reflecting the interests of the wealthy minority “who are placed above the feelings of indigence,” the majority’s designs will be frustrated.

Writing at Newsbusters, P.J. Gladnick asked:

Could the publication of this column be a signal from Politico to its readers that they find the U.S. Constitution to be a “problematic” threat to democracy?

The obvious answer to that, of course, is YES.  But to what end?  I can only think of one.  Leftists like Robin hate the Constitution, hate America, hate Republicans, and want a Soviet-style dictatorship in place where only one side is allowed to speak, or even operate.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll continue to say it.  At this point, the only real difference between the radical American left and the tyrants who ran Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union is… native language.


Turn your back on Big Tech oligarchs and join the New Resistance NOW!  Facebook, Google, and other members of the Silicon Valley Axis of Evil are now doing everything they can to deliberately silence conservative content online, so please be sure to check out our MeWe page here, check us out at ProAmerica Only and follow us at Parler, Social Cross and Gab.  You can also follow us on Twitter at @co_firing_line, and at the new social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.

While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views:Trending Views

Joe Newby

A 10-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Joe ran for a city council position in Riverside, Calif., in 1991 and managed successful campaigns for the Idaho state legislature. Co-author of "Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad," Joe wrote for Examiner.com from 2010 until it closed in 2016 and his work has been published at Newsbusters, Spokane Faith and Values and other sites. He now runs the Conservative Firing Line.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×