Recently Michael Wilbon, sports journalist, caused a stir with his reaction to Bruce Pearl stepping down as Auburn's basketball head coach. Wilbon said he was glad and he hoped the school pressured him to leave. Why did Wilbon say this? Because Pearl became more vocal about his conservative Christian beliefs. Wilbon called that divisive.
This response caused some more conservative sport reporters to challenge Wilbon's take. They claim that Wilbon isn't saying keep politics out of sport, as he constantly cheers for pushed liberal politics.
I've seen a great many leftist respond calling the right leaning reporters hypocritical for cheering on Pearl's positions, while saying keep politics out of sports. This seems like a tactic of the left. Shift the Overton sharply to the left, the right responds can't we leave politics out of things, they are mocked and accussed of privilege. Eventually some righty will push back a little and the left will cry, see you said keep politics out of things but hear you are supporting politics.
And it usually works.
It has been the tactic since since the dawn of liberalism, of the Rousseau variety. The liberal elites decide what the 'general will' is and what defines the new normal for society. Any deviation from that makes you a wrong thinker and enemy of the people. In marxist rhetoric this is called being reactionary even if you're just calling for a return to the previous normal.
They may even call you a counterrevolutionary wrecker and saboteur.
“Reactionary” is the most comically self-serving political label in existence because it implies that people are somehow automatically wrong for reacting to aggression. Marxism is deliberately subversive. It is an incursion. It demands reaction.
I'm reading Rousseau at the moment and it seems his idea of the general will is something like whatever gets unanimous agreement. Not very practical in the real world, but it certainly doesn't sound like something a subgroup of the population get to determine.
In 'unanimous' decisions, often the majority kicks out the minority who voted the wrong way until they get a unanimous decision. This happens in academia. Consensus is reached when we kick out the quacks.
In practice, in national politics, how could it ever be decided? Only 10% ever do anything. Naturally I subscribe to elite theory. People don't revolt. The elites rally the population to do what they want. Don't forget that Rosseau is writing to convince the people of his generation.
Is there any evidence Rousseau intended such a state of affairs?