The dean of Washington journalism, David S. Broder, aptly shows what is wrong with the poltical Washington establishment represented by him. It despises democracy.
In his column A Mob-Rule Moment Broder argues that politicians in Washington should listen less to the people:
A particularly virulent strain of populism has made official Washington altogether too responsive to public opinion.
[..]
In today’s Washington, a badly weakened president and a dangerously compliant congressional leadership are no match for the power of public opinion — magnified and sometimes exaggerated by modern communications and interest group pressure.
He picks two issues to prove his thesis:
The latest cave-ins involve immigration and trade policy, and both seriously threaten the national interest.
And here is the problem. Who, in Broder’s world, does define the national interest?
Obviously not the people whose will, he says expressly, threatens the national interest.
To prove his point that the people are wrong about the failed immigration law he simply states his own subjective opinion:
the defeated legislation offered some prospect of improving at least some aspects of that broken system
With regard to trade he quotes a politician who expresses an opinion he agrees with:
"America
needs to remain open for business to the 95 percent of the world’s
consumers living outside the United States," said U.S. Trade
Representative Susan Schwab. And she is right.
There
is no argument of the issues at hand. Just Border’s opinion. Obviously
in his mind, he himself, and those politicians he agrees with, are the
only ones to rightly define the national interests. If voters, the people, have other interests, they are to be ignored.
National interest, which is whatever Broder thinks it should
be, trumps the will of the people. Therefore politicians simply shall
ignore their voters will.
The point is pretty basic.
Politicians are wise to heed what people want. But they also have an
obligation to weigh for themselves what the country needs. In today’s
Washington, the "wants" of people count far more heavily than the
nation’s needs.
To Broder, the "wants" of the people
are, by definition, different than the nation’s need. He doesn’t even
argue why this could be the case at all but states it as a simple fact.
Democracy, in his mind, directly contradicts national interest.
He is calling for an oligarchic state with a few ruling people, including him, to further whatever they define as the nation’s need or the national interest.
Elections to him are just a tool to win a leading position. If that
demands lying to the people, that is fine. Once in positions,
politicians are only to do what the national interest, as defined by Broder, demands and what their personal ambitions dictate.
You
can win elections by promising people what they want. But you win your
place in history by doing what the country needs done.
Broder
does not argue for outright dictatorial rule. The Potemkin village of
democracy must not be shredded. He argues to use deceit to get elected.
After having collected the votes, one is free to do whatever one wants
to do. As long as it furthers Broder’s personal incarnation of national interest.
It is frightening, though not very surprising, to read such sick contempt for the people in a leading U.S. paper.
It’s high time for a cure against this.