Following the so-called Brexit vote on June 23 of this year, whereby the majority of voters in Great Britain expressed their dissatisfaction with the European Union as constituted, the media pretty much threw a hissy fit. For that matter, so did the White House. But I digress.
Apparently, the media has become so accustomed to shaping public opinion that the Brexit passage caught them completely off guard. Therefore, they found themselves compelled to explain to us mortals why we were so wrong. For the record, I was a supporter of Brexit before, during, and after the vote. In doing so, they occasionally step on their own tongues and sometimes, they actually reveal what they actually think of “the people.”
I found a classic case a few days ago on Yahoo, by staff writer Andy Serwer. It was headlined, “We’re suffering the consequences of too much democracy.” In revealing his surprise, and, from what I can tell, his disdain for “the people,” Serwer explains that Brexit would be very detrimental to Great Britain’s economy. He apparently thinks that providing financial support for the rest of Europe in excess of any benefits for Great Britain has made Great Britain’s citizens prosperous. The logic escapes me.
Serwer goes on to explain that the USA has sometimes fallen victim to “the people” in the past. He cites Proposition 13 in California, among other popular referenda. According to Serwer, we should use the Brexit lesson to remind ourselves that we are not capable of making great decisions.
Here is part of what I said on the radio show that followed the Brexit vote:
An old saying goes, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.” Democracy reared its head in Great Britain on Thursday, and the sheep was somehow surprised that it lost.
Perhaps the reason we have a Representative Republic in the USA is because pure Democracy is so full of surprises. The Founders never mentioned the word “democracy” in the Founding Documents, choosing not to let the people fight it out and make every decision by pure majority. Referenda, by their very nature, are democracy in action, as the majority rules. Be careful what you wish for. Sometimes, the people are unhappy, so they speak up. The result of the British Exit from the EU was a prime example. Personally, I am proud of the voters of Great Britain for bucking their “leadership” and speaking their own independent minds.
It should be easy to understand why a recent article by former Congressman and repeat Presidential contender Ron Paul caught my eye. It was titled, “Don’t reform the Fed, Fed-Exit!”
Congressman Paul is a long-time opponent of the Federal Reserve (FED), as am I. He has tried for years to get the Congress to authorize a full-blown audit of the FED, but powerful forces in Washington, D.C. always kibosh the process before it really gets off the ground. I wonder why? Is it possible that educating “the people” would potentially have disastrous consequences?
Paul dubs the FED’s manipulation of the nation’s money supply “price fixing.” He is, of course, correct, as the normal forces of supply and demand are over-ridden in the market by FED actions. The ultimate victims are the American workers, whose earned dollar has lost about 96% of its value since 1913, when the FED was authorized by Congress, though it is not actually part of our government. And that is only the government-reported number. The truth would be worse yet.
Paul doesn’t stop at reporting a problem; he offers a two-step solution. First, he proposes a full audit of the FED in order to expose the truth, which, hopefully, would lead to a dose of democracy. If “the people” were privy to the harm befalling them, Paul believes, and I concur, that they would vote for a FED-Exit.
I’ll bet that Serwer would be devastated if that happened. I have a suggestion (naturally) – FedEx the FED to a country that cares.
Paul will be writing more specifics about his plan, and when he does I will report to you. Further, I’ll throw in my own opinions for free.