...Senator-for-life from New York, renowned for his love of standing in front of cameras and microphones. Schumer has been a professional politician since 1975, when disco was in flower, which is 45.49857 years, or 318.48999000000003 years in dog years. Senate minority leader as of 2017..., portrays himself as an unrelenting warrior for democracy and the champion of the oppressed. But in his narrow perspective, in which maintaining his and his party’s political power appears as an overriding value that trumps all other values, he does not seem to realize that he confuses things that the majority of the American people do not.
Would someone, please, explain to him that cheating on behalf of the oppressed has virtually nothing to do with democracy and that a lack of ability or will to succeed in a merit-based society does not automatically make one an oppressed person? Because as long as he and some other Democrats share this confusion, the adjective "Democratic" is going to mean "cheating on behalf of all those who are unable or unwilling to succeed on their own." And that would make the entire "Democratic" Party an existential threat to our Republic and to the freedom and well-being of the majority of the American people.
Schumer also showed confusion about Senate Bill S.1, disingenuously titled "For the People Act," which attempts to perpetuate what the self-styled "Democratic Party" and its operatives have been doing for many decades now: Facilitating election fraud that benefits the party and its vigorous power grabs. The bill, among other things, will build upon the "democratic" experiences of the 2020 elections in which a lack of adequate voter identification, breaks in the chain of custody for mail-in votes, and wide-spread cheating during vote counting and tabulation led to Democrats achieving narrow victories of highly questionable legitimacy.
Schumer’s confusion does not end with misinterpreting "democracy" and "oppression." He also seems to confuse Western ethics with the rule that (sometimes) "the end justifies the means." That explains why he sees nothing fundamentally wrong with cheating on behalf of whomever he considers "oppressed." It also explains why he and many of his "Democratic" allies do not hesitate to sacrifice election integrity (and some other cornerstones of our Republic) on the altar of their "Democratic" power grab.
When you scrutinize it, the excuse that "the end justifies the means," even if only "sometimes," emerges as a serious threat to the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men) that is central to the American Republic and the Constitution that defines it. As much as it is often presented as an expedient way of fixing broken political and legal systems, it is a "cure" that is notorious for being worse than the disease that it purports to fight. What the end/means approach does is desensitize the powerful to the injustices they inflict upon the powerless in the name of a "higher good," whatever that ubiquitous term may mean. It is a quintessence of corruption and it justifies virtually any wrongdoing, as long as it is done for an allegedly "good" purpose.