Bill Collier- The 2016 election was not a repudiation of the left any more than it was a validation of either the left or the right. It was a demonstration that freedom and safety in a "representative republic" hangs on a thin thread: that being the fickled electorate.
To begin, let me state, I am fully engaged in politics. I embrace political action as a means of blunting and pushing back a trend away from freedom and toward a stronger politocracy. I do so all the more because small margins of voters spell the difference between electing nominal politocrats (or even anti-politocrats) on one hand and hard-core freedom-takers on the other hand. Usually the left are the major threat, though threats to freedom from the right can be insidous as well.
If you are not familiar with this site, politocracy is any system where politics dominates most of life and where only a few people really control politics. Politocracy can take many ideological forms, which might be classified as left or right, and it can happen on different levels, whether a small city run by poltical bosses or the old USSR and its satellites.
What people need, even if they don't realize it, is a safe haven from the poltiocracy. Politocracy inhibits human potential and assaults human dignity. You cannot really be free to pursue God's best for your life with excellence in a full-fledged politocracy.
In 2016, Donald Trump won the election and Republicans maintained control of both houses of Congress. This did not mean the threat of politocracy was eliminated, but under Trump a substantial source of politocracy, massive regulations, was decreased. While we may argue whether Trump is totally anti-politocracy or politocracy-lite, we cannot argue that the current Democrats and Hillary Clinton are hard-core politocrats.
In essence, it seems, America dodged a bullet: a massive imposition of politocracy that could have taken an ugly turn. We will never know.
But the 2016 election was not a repudiation of anything or an embracing of anything else. It was a confused mess of coalitions who aligned behind either candidate, mostly for parochial or reactionary reasons. Put another way, few people consciously voted FOR politocracy and some voted against politocracy. In fairness, I would presume more people voted against politocracy than for it because nobody was extolling its virtues. On the other hand, there were plenty of claims by Trump that we needed to reduce the influence of politics and eliminate the "establishment" from controlling politics.
So, while many of Trump's voters were voting against the poltiocracy, many were voting for other reasons as well.
That being said, no clear majority won on election day. Neither candidate won a majority of votes. Clinton won more votes, but lost states, giving an electoral college win to Trump. But just barely. We might argue about how Clinton ran up the score in California and New York to boost her numbers, states Trump did not play in, while Trump did not attempt to run up the score in Texas, where he handily won. In other words, it is argued, Trump could have won the popular vote of he wanted to, but as this was not the way the game was played, he didn't really try.
Regardless, we will never know. Trump did not do anything in California and New York worth mentioning and Clinton won all her margin of polular vote victory in those states. No wonder Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college. They always want reforms that give them an advantage, those are the only kind of reforms they like.
The 2016 election proved nothing more than this: the electorate is not a safe haven for freedom. While engaging in political action is, I assert, a necessitty and sitting on the sidelines when radical politocrats are seeking power is foolish, it is also foolish to rely on the electorate for anything.
The battleground for freedom will move to the realm of the cryptonation, combined with on-the-ground associations and fraternal communities based on membership in these nations. The poltical state will have to respect large-scale cryptonations dispersed around the world but which have GDP's comaprable to nation-states and political clout in the international arena.
This will not be about votes and elections. It will he about compacts and perhaps even treaties. Political states that are most accommodating to cryptonations will have economic rewards as e-citizens of cryptonations do business with poltical citizens of those states first, and even visit there or take up residence. Meanwhile, states that try and suppress cryptonations will be on the losing end of the deal as e-citizens of cryptonations who are polticial citizens of those states look for greener pastures and leave.
And who will these e-citizens be? Generally, the most creative, intelligent, and productive people who are willing and able to take personal responsibility for themselves and the people they care for will gravitate toward these new structures. And they will come to expect the state in which they hold their political citizenship to accommodate their e-citizenship as well.
The cryptonation of Upadaria is just one such nation where people will be able to become e-citizens, and as and when it grows to tens of millions of e-citizens around the world, and has its own cryptocurrency and trade network, it will have the combined economic, and therefore poltical, clout to win concessions and accommodations from political states.
This then becomes the ultimate safeguard. As fraternal communities associated with this cryptonation emerge within friendly political states, then e-citizens from less friendly poltical states will always have a refuge, if they need it. Such pressure will be more effective than winning elections in terms of restraining the march toward politocracy.
Political action is a necessity. But building a cryptonation on its own platform with its own meshnet and globally distributed fraternal communities as missionary and refugee hubs is a stronger, more sustainable, and foolproof safeguard of our freedom.