Liberal Democracy the Reformist Enemy
Being active in political thought, I come across many people who see the necessity for change but only want to change the surface level. Liberal democracy, particularly in America, is like a weed that while on the surface you can simply cut some parts off of it to feel better, the reality is that weed will continue coming back. Why does the weed come back is simple, you aren’t pulling it out by the roots. Those people who believe that a reform on immigration, gun control or abortion will solve America’s ills are greatly mistaken. Contemporary liberalism's greatest weapon against dissent is reformism. The liberal elite will do just enough to appease their critics. This is not a solution, merely a distraction from the ideological problem of liberalism that must be torn out by the roots in a complete and total replacement of the ideological structure. An example I will use is the migrant crisis of 2016. Ever since 2016, we have seen growing discontent with the policy of unrestricted immigration. The liberal elite aren't blind to the fact that immigration harms the national character. Now the liberals are openly talking about restricting immigration to appease the disgruntled masses. Trump is part of the first wave of anti immigrant liberal “populists”. These supposed populist characters who claim to be the protectors of the working man and national sovereignty are merely just a distraction from the ills of liberal democracy. I will quote H.L. Mencken who was no Fascist, but was a critic of liberal democracy: “
[Supporters of Democracy] are always happy. Democracy is a sort of laughing gas. It will not cure anything, perhaps, but it unquestionably stops the pain.”
The whole structure of liberal democracy must go if we wish to make a permanent positive change within the nation. Let’s assume that we have an objectively perfect president who was ideal for the nation. What about the House and the Senate, they will be far from perfect, being bought by moneyed interests with goals that will conflict with our hypothetical perfect president, preventing him from accomplishing anything of significant value. I’m going to throw a bone and we can assume the house and senate are objectively perfect for the duration of the objectively perfect presidency. Assuming the objectively perfect president serves two terms, what then, What will the next president do? Everyone should be reasonably content and happy with our objectively perfect president who served for 8 years. However, the next president will undoubtedly be far from perfect doing policies that will contradict the former president’s policies and ruin the continuation.This scenario only highlights the reformist problem of liberal democracy, it is only meant to temporarily appease, but is incapable of accomplishing long term solutions. Let’s go back to those who still believe that the American foundation was ideal; despite the obvious influences of Lockean Liberalism such constitutionalists are people who have a romantic view of the American Revolution. These people will argue that the American system of liberal democracy was perfect and its subsequent decline only resulted because it was “subverted” and “corrupted”, they will make any excuse for this, claiming it was foreign influence or the opposing party of the respective time. The reality is that Liberal Democracy was designed to be relative and reformed, if this was not the case, the Constitution, which its defenders claim to be perfect by design, would in fact not be designed to be amended and changed multiple times, using relative language that got us to this point of degeneration. I will insert this long quote from James Strachey Barnes’ Interview with Benito Mussolini to support my claim that no constitution is perfect or infallible, if the constitution is bad, it must be scrapped and replaced:
BM:“So, to sum up, we can confidently say: ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are epithets applicable to conditions, especially to conditions of the spirit (the mind). Knowledge of good and bad is universal. Otherwise there could be no progress except casually, as the result of conflict in which the bad has as likely a chance of triumphing as the good. Belief in the inevitability of progress towards better conditions is misplaced optimism. We hold fast to this truth and we seek to create an aristocracy in the true sense of the word (the rule of the best available) to guide us towards the good. No aristocracy is infallible, but it is indispensable. The fascist constitution is based on that principle. It is no more than a piece of machinery. If it fails we will scrap it and make another. There is no perfect constitution any more than a perfect aeroplane. But one aeroplane can be said to be better than another in so far as it better fulfils its purpose. And the purpose of Fascism is plain: to make the world a better place to live in and man a nobler citizen. Church and State, each in its own sphere, have the same aim: the service of God. That is what we mean, in simple language, by the Ethical State. The Authoritative State follows as a logical consequence; and the Corporative State is an excellent means devised to evolve the best possible Authoritative State, in which collective interests may be safeguarded and in which every man may, at the same time, be born carrying in his knapsack a marshal’s baton of authority and responsibility, which, together with Christian charity and the principle of equality before the law, is the foundation and perhaps also the limit of a good democracy. Can you inform your countrymen of that?”
In conclusion, if we wish to accomplish a real change for America, we must get rid of Liberal Democracy. Let me make this clear, we are in a struggle against democracy for our survival. Fascism is what we need to place after liberal democracy is gone.
 ”Democracy, nationalism and populism: The US, Israel, and beyond”
 "The Master Illusion" in the The American Mercury (March 1925), p. 319