Relax.
Democracy will survive the election of election deniers.
It is easier to complain if you don't have the job.
Few Republican candidates or officeholders paid a political price for being a 2020 election denier. Some on the national stage won their primaries because they adopted the full Trump stolen election story. More typical are Republicans who say they don't disagree that the election was stolen. They split the difference. That doesn't satisfy Trump enough to get his endorsement, but it satisfies most GOP voters. They like believing they were cheated, somehow, maybe, probably, and they don't want someone disagreeing with that belief.
My own congressperson, Cliff Bentz, voted to overturn the electoral votes of Pennsylvania. Why would he substitute his judgement for that of Pennsylvania voters who gave Biden an 80,000 vote margin? Why would he substitute his legal judgment on Pennsylvania law for that of the Pennsylvania courts? Because the GOP House caucus wanted him to do it. Bentz went along. He is expected to win handily today. Republican voters are OK with discarding elections, if a Democrat wins. No harm, no foul.
Yet I am still optimistic that America will get through this rough patch in our democracy.
Republican victories today may restore Republican support for elections. After all, if they won, the election was free and fair. I expect the new officials to announce yet more election audits. Good. Why not? Audits undercut the claims of the election deniers. Republican officeholders had a problem after the 2020 election because the same election that elected them failed to elect Trump. Somehow only Biden's victory was fraudulent, but not theirs. I presume the 2022 election today will be honestly counted, and that some election deniers will win. That isn't all bad. At least that resolves that elections can be fair. That is progress.
But! But! But! When in office, won't election-denying officials put their thumb on the scales, under cover of wink-wink "election security?" Won't they under-resource polling places in Democratic neighborhoods? Won't they disproportionately challenge the signatures on absentee ballots from likely Democratic voters? I expect they will try, and sometimes succeed. It sometimes happens now.
My optimism may be misplaced. Officeholders can declare legal fictions and stick to the story in the face of all contrary evidence. We have seen the power of willful blindness. There is risk that election-deniers who win office will simply over-rule the actual vote and refuse to certify it. Trump and his loyal supporters urged election officials do that very thing.
17 comments:
Agree thoroughly on "Relax", and on the specific reference for our purposes here to 2020 election deniers.
Democracy also survived other explicit and prominent 21st century election deniers, such as Hillary Clinton, Stacy Abrams, Jamie Raskin, John Lewis and Karine-Jean-Pierre.
Likewise, voters may yet transmogrify anew from dumb and manipulable back to attentive and prescient.
Republican election denying is cynical gamesmanship, done with a smirk and a wink.
"Can you believe how dumb people are?" They say as they laugh and slap each other on the back. "They actually believe the election was stolen, Ha Ha Ha! I can't breathe..."
US elections are the gold standard, and until recently it was in both party's interests that they be credible and respected. Not any more. Politicians used to be somewhat self-regulating, it was in their interest to weed out the fraudsters. Not any more. It's the Wild West now, anything goes.
Why would they change their only tactic that is working? Suddenly become honorable, honest and responsible?
I hope you are right, but I doubt it.
Peter, if your optimism isn’t just wishful thinking, then we should be seeing the last of politicians like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, but I’m not holding my breath.
The good news is that whack jobs like them and their spiritual leader, DeSanctimious, are the ones white nationalists count on to end the quest for social justice and win their war on ‘woke.’ What I believe they’ll find is, with friends like those, who needs enemas? They bring out the best in each other.
I tried to let your optimism wash over me and convince me, but it hasn't worked. Do you really think Cliff Benz, after having "governed" for two years would do any better under the same circumstances? My career required me to believe that people could change and do better. Liz Cheney, Charlie Sykes and Bill Kristol are examples that a few people can make the change for the good of the country, but I see no evidence that their change is influencing enough people.
Paul Krugman wrote about this today and stated it better than I could. His column is found at this tinyurl.
https://tinyurl.com/mrx93das
And for those who voted on the basis of Hillary's emails or gasoline prices, they were participants in bringing this doom.
My name isn't Pollyanna and I don't subscribe to the "it can never happen here" train of thought. I also am a student of history.
January 6, 2021, was real. Trying to extort Ukraine was real. The plot against the governor of Michigan was real. The home invasion and assault on Paul Pelosi was real. The overturning of Roe v. Wade was real (also lying to be confirmed). Stealing top secret documents was real. Lying and intentionally trying to undermine our democratic institutions is real. Voter intimidation and suppression is real.
I don't know what more needs to happen before more Americans wake up to the clear and present danger we are in. Apparently, Bill Maher (sp?) summed it up quite well just recently (Google it).
The supposed "election denying" of Hillary et al. is utterly different from what Trump did and is doing. People who assert that as similar are doing trolling and most of the commenters here are better than that. Hillary called and conceded and attended Trump's inauguration. Trump denies the legitimacy of Biden and worked hard to sabotage the interregnum.
I urge commenters who have some reputation to uphold not to trivialize themselves. Don't fool oneself, either, in attempting to make an argument that is droll and might frustrate and "trigger the libs."
But if commenters here really want to praise and justify and liken Trump to other American politicians they may have a long chance to do it as the GOP nominee. But then they should not feel picked on if people say that American Republicans are 100% Trump and ascribe Trump behavior to them. Minimize and justify and regularizing Trump has consequences. I would think American Republicans would want to distinguish Trump as different. Not regularize him. But it is their call.
Peter Sage
Election Protection coalition (national and local partners) has a website and hotline:
866-our-vote
(other tel. numbers for other languages, see website)
866ourvote.org
Exposing Hillary Clinton and scare-quote double standards does not require, not itself amount to, a concomitant defense of Trump and his conduct.
As a gatekeeping factual and legal matter, of course, much depends on how legitimate or accurate are the "Democracy Nearly Ended" claims on the Left.
Nonetheless, Clinton took to the Senate floor in 2001 and 2005 to declare that Dubya was not the legitimate president because of election dirty tricks.
Clinton to this day maintains 2016 was "stolen" and Trump not the legitimate President. Plans to "literally steal" 2024 are now in place, she recently claimed.
Aside from sentiment on rival partisan fainting couches, the overall civic impact from Clinton versus Trump on this score is a distinction without a difference.
The proof? Most voters period consider 1/6 and related concerns overblown. Minimizing Trump? Democrats aggrandize him, because they have zippo else to say.
"I would think American Republicans would want to distinguish Trump as different. Not regularize him."
According to the Pew Research Center, 51% of Republicans say they like political leaders who say Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election. They're proud of being delusional. Nor do commentors who don't give their name have much reputation to uphold.
I am looking forward to the election results. Specifically, whether the candidate will accept that our elections are fair and impartial if they win or lose. I suspect we will see a flurry of court filings and recounts regardless. I also will be looking to see if Roger Stone and Michael Flynn engage in some form of skullduggery akin to the Brooks Brothers riot in the Bush - Gore election.
Footnote: I wish people watching Fox News could remember Marjorie Taylor Greene won her seat in the US House from Georgia when Trump was at the top of the ticket and lost. The question that should be asked is "If MTG won and you believe the election was stolen, why would the Democrats allow you a win?" If you follow Trump's "logic", since he lost and Biden's win was illegitimate aren't all the declared election winners illegitimate?
Oh well "...just find me 11,780 (pause) votes" says DJT
Awe, ...I almost feel sorry for you all.
Please let me serenade your misery and woe.
Here's some more of the brilliance of Donald Fagen and Walter Becker, aka, Steely Dan,
" they got a name
for the winners in the world,
I want a name when I lose.
They call Alabama the
CRIMSON TIDE
...call me Deacon Blues...
Deacon bluuuuuuueess."
Democrats have zippo else to say...That's a new one! (Have all commenters actually watched the 1/6 hearings?)
But here is something: Those poor, pitiful, downtrodden Republicans who LOST the popular vote of the American people in 2000 and 2016, but still captured the White House because of the unfair and undemocratic electoral college and the Supreme Court (Gore v. Bush).
Furthermore, the "win" in 2000 was by only One electoral college vote from Florida, the state in which the governor was the "winner's" brother. Also, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a conservative Republican, so it all worked out just "right."
Correction/clarification: 270 EC votes were needed to win and Bush received a total of 271 EC votes, which included Florida.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was William Rehnquist and the decision was 5-4.
This video streamed live about an hour ago. It's called "America's untold stories" and the great fount of knowledge is a Mr Mark Groubert, who happens to be one of the founders of National Lampoon and and assisted with Oliver Stone in the making of the movie JFK.
For those of you who are clearly well-versed in history and consider American elections the "gold standard" for the world, please watch this video so you can be blinded by the light.
https://youtu.be/D7lqlnHia3o
Ah yes, the Crimson Tide. I suppose David in Ashland is referring to the notorious Red Tide that so many long for. It's highly toxic and contaminates all it touches.
"National Lampoon" is certainly reputable, but I prefer "The Onion," America's Finest News Source:
"Obama Claims He's Still President After Seeing How Susceptible Voters Are To Conspiracy Theories."
https://www.theonion.com/latest
Post a Comment