Heads, I Win. Tails, You’re A Threat To Democracy.

Interesting to watch Democrats take both sides of arguments.

For example, when they make arguments for and against gerrymandering at the same time (good when they do it, bad when someone else does) and the same when it comes to free speech (our speech is protected, yours is disinformation and violence, so not protected), you begin to understand how a political party that has come to be built on radical, irrational positions can survive.

When you consider how standing on both sides can be true, you come to understand that their power is based on two things – process and structure – and the control of both – and not the will of the people.

They depend upon controlling the processes of government and defining a structure that gives them permissions that are denied to anyone else (packing the Supreme Court, racially gerrymandered districts, and potential statehood for DC and PR are “structural” changes that would advantage Democrats).

The last thing they want is a true representative republic that freely expresses the actual will of the people. That, my dear friends, is why they drone on and on about “democracy” because through process and structure, the outputs of “democracy” can be controlled and managed to produce a desired outcome – and when it doesn’t, it can be ignored.

At first glance, this looks like hypocrisy. At a surface level we all understand, it is, but stopping there misses the more important point. This isn’t random inconsistency or careless contradiction. It reflects a deeper operating logic and one that prioritizes control over process and structure rather than persuasion or consensus.

If you can control the process, you don’t have to win the argument. If you can shape the structure, you don’t have to rely on the unpredictable will of the electorate.

That’s where the conversation moves from rhetoric to strategy. Consider the recurring calls to restructure foundational elements of American governance: expanding the Supreme Court, admitting new states like Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, or drawing districts in insane ways to lock in durable advantages. Each of these proposals is framed in moral or democratic language of fairness, representation, and equity, but each also has a clear and predictable partisan effect. They are not neutral reforms, they are structural adjustments designed to produce specific political outcomes.

From this perspective, the apparent contradictions begin to make sense. If your primary objective is to secure and maintain power through institutional means, then consistency in argument becomes secondary. What matters is whether a given position advances or threatens that objective in the moment.

This also helps explain the persistent emphasis on the language of “democracy.” It is invoked constantly, almost reflexively, as both justification and shield but the word itself does a lot of heavy lifting. Democracy, in its pure form, suggests majority rule—the unfiltered expression of the people’s will. Yet the reality of modern governance is far more mediated. Processes can be designed, rules can be written, and structures can be built in ways that shape outcomes long before a single vote is cast.

In other words, if you control the inputs, you can largely predict—and manage—the outputs, and when the outputs don’t align with expectations, the response is often not reflection but recalibration. Change the rules. Adjust the structure. Redefine the terms. The goal is not to abandon the system, but to refine it until it produces the “correct” results.

I think the 2020 election is a prime example.

I have stated before that I personally don’t have evidence the 2020 election was corrupt – but I also don’t have evidence it wasn’t. I think the brilliance of Democrat operatives was that while the GOP was snoozing, they began efforts in key states years before election day 2020 to shape the process to their advantage – the Covid pandemic was a godsend that shot a mix of steroids and adrenaline directly into mainline arteries of a sort of legal malfeasance and gamesmanship.

Mail out/mail in ballots that were simply not traceable, ballot “drop boxes” and ballot “harvesting” served to create a situation where ballots could be corrupted before they were counted under prying eyes, and combined with relaxed validation processes, made finding proof of chicanery virtually impossible. No amount of recounting cooked ballots, the origin of which was impossible to determine, would change the outcome but it would produce results consistently enough to defend against challenges. Or as we saw, would reveal only minor issues that could be used to substantiate the “it’s just a very few bad actors but not enough to change outcomes” defense.

Ironically, finding just a few fraudulent operators served to justify the premise the entire election was clean – the most secure ever as we were told.

To me, this kind of “management” of outcomes is why the tension between a true representative republic and the modern conception of managed democracy is becoming harder to ignore. A representative republic depends on the idea that political outcomes should reflect the will of the people, even when that will produces inconvenient or undesirable results. A system focused on process and structural control, by contrast, seeks to minimize that unpredictability.

So, what looks like contradiction on the surface is, in reality, a kind of coherence just not the kind rooted in consistent principles. It is a coherence of method. Control the mechanisms, define the framework, and the results will follow.

Once you see that, the Democrat double arguments aren’t really confusing anymore.