Which proves my point. Jesus was not an Anarchist. His destruction of the temple was in his Father's ( God's ) name.
Again, the definition of Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. It's the furthest from Jesus' message. He wholly recognized God as the Father and his commandments as the law, adding another:
“The most important [Commandment],” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” ( Mark 12: 29-31 )
I can't answer for the Democratic leaders of Western society, and frankly, I don't really understand your question. What are you asking?
This verse more acurately should read "Love your neighbour as part of
yourself", which for me emphasises the importance of social and spiritual connectedness - what we do to others we do to ourselves (a statement of fact of how things work) -- and this shifts the balance from merely obeying a command (negative reinforcement) and more towards it's just a sensible thing to do (positive reinforcement). Regarding anarchy,
it's a question of definition. Anarchy has come to mean 'lawlessness and chaos'. It has become a useful enemy-label for authoritarians to throw at anyone who disagrees with them.
But digging a little deeper ...
... 'An' means 'not' --
and 'archon' carries the primary meaning 'primeordial'/very ancient/primitive/thefirst, or 'to begin, to be the first'. It's secondary meaning is 'to lead' and 'to rule' - but someone who leads the way does not necessarily have to rule as well. The 'wise ones' of the past were rarely the executive branch as well.
So we could say that 'anarchy' means "The refusal of being told what to do".
This does not have to lead to lawlessness and chaos IF people en-mass were mature enough to handle differences between themselves. Not an easy task, even within smallish puposeful communities. And given our technologically connected world on a grand scale, laws are needed, if only to agree on which side of the road we should drive
Authoritarians of course believe people are way too stupid to make decuisions for the collective good, so the masses need to be surveilled and told what to do in every minute detail of their lives. And it is this overbearing 'being told what to do with their lives' (much of it technologically structured within culture) that 'anarchists' (including myself) rebel against.
Power is far too centralised, and a much more decentralised socio-political structure would go a long way to people not feeling disenfranchised with how they are governed, and resorting to anarchic tendecies as a protest to try and maintain some sense of self on in an overly-centrally-organised world. ...
... which is perhaps comes full circle to the verse the verse of loving one's neighbour as part of
I might also add that Nature exudes "self-organising systems" at every level, but this is incompatible with our dear leaders' centralised command-and-control mindsets.
If power were devolved, we would have a much kinder and more engaged world - and 'anarchy' would have found its rightful place.