Why democracy?

The Progressive Era gave birth to the regulatory state to protect workers from employers and consumers from producers, financed by revenue of the federal graduated income tax authorized by the 16th Amendment and gathered by the IRS.

It gave the power to choose a state's senators to the voters of that state in the 17th Amendment, removing that power from the state's legislature.

It gave women the right to vote in the 19th Amendment.

In the decades since, progressivism has put teeth in the voting rights provision of the 15th Amendment, eliminated the poll tax as a barrier to the franchise in the 24th Amendment, and lowered the voting age to 18 with the 26th Amendment.

Both at the time and since that time, America's co-called movement conservatives have opposed all those changes.

As to the attitude of the Buchananites, the chief purpose of progressive insistence on democratic elements in government was and continues to be to enable the people to protect themselves, principally from the rapacity, greed, and cruelty of the rich.

Our so-called conservatives in general and Buchananites in particular oppose acts of the people to defend themselves against the rapacity, greed, and cruelty of the rich as abuses of democracy, corruptions of virtuous republicanism, and "taking" (Romney) or even "looting" (Ayn Rand).

A disadvantage of democratic features of government, recognized at all times as well by progressives as anyone else, is the risk of handing power to demagogues who will endanger the constitution and lawful government, and threaten or actually bring about tyranny.

Buchananites nevertheless have welcomed the demagogy of Trump as it seems the only way to advance their agenda.

Movement conservatives, despite misgivings over agenda differences, mostly fall into line with the demagogue for the same reason.

But not all of them.

David Frum, The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton, opposes Trump precisely as a demagogue and enemy of lawful and constitutional government, a budding tyrant.

He is not entirely alone among Republicans and movement conservatives.

But nearly so.

After all, it is conservatives and Republicans who have made this man their candidate for the White House, and over the months of the primary and general campaign seasons they have had ample opportunities to do as Frum has done, not only refusing to support him but supporting instead Hillary Clinton.

They have not done it.

Quite the contrary.

McConnell Speaks Out On Trump: Make Him 'Most Powerful Republican'

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made his strongest statement yet on his party's presidential nominee, telling a rally in his home state Wednesday that "we need a new president, Donald Trump, to be the most powerful Republican in America."

McConnell has warned repeatedly that Republicans could lose control of the Senate this year as they are forced to defend a handful of seats in swing states across the country. 

Since endorsing Trump shortly after he secured the nomination, McConnell has been mostly silent about the nominee so that vulnerable incumbents — like New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte — could distance themselves from Trump and his increasingly erratic comments. 

McConnell even told a group of business leaders at a recent speech that if they wanted to hear him discuss Trump, they "might has well go ahead and leave."

But speaking in a cavernous tractor dealership in central Kentucky on Wednesday night — where McConnell was introduced as the "most powerful Republican in the world" — the senator went all in for Trump before a small but enthusiastic crowd.

Ross Douthat, no Buchananite, reflects on this.

Odd that he does not consider what seems to me most likely true, that his pro-life battle against Roe, apparently the most central and important agenda item in his personal, Christian conservatism, is likely lost for good.

And so he does not address the question of pro-lifers' peaceful acceptance of the legitimacy of our republic and its democratic processes in case, though political opposition to abortion remains possible and quite real, it can no longer reasonably expect ever to win by lawful, democratic, and constitutional means.

And the hitherto Never Trump National Review has been Never Hillary for some weeks, now.

Meanwhile, Sanders supporters like Ron Chusid continue to concentrate on running pieces viciously critical of Hillary while (relatively speaking) ignoring Trump, arguing that a Clinton victory would be worse for the country (actually, worse for the prospects of eventually advancing Sanders style progressivism) than a Trump victory.

Like some stupid Weimar Communist arguing better Hitler and the Nazis than Otto Wels and the Social Democrats.

These die-hards just don't get it.

This is the wrong year.

The two leading minor party candidates this year are hopeless, ignorant, incompetent, and wholly unprepared for the job, and the others are worse.

A minor party vote this year can only be a protest vote.

And it's not a good year for that.