End of Democracy?
A bunch of political hacks and thugs broke windows and doors and created a new page in the history books. It was horrible and scary and wrong. But did it really signal an end to democracy? Why can't politicians just say the truth? The end of democracy? A significant threat to democracy? I don't think so.
Does anyone really think that even in the chaos that resided in our Congress, that the folks involved in the invasion were significant? Were organized? Had a plan to take over the government? We are now more than a year from that event and yet the same talking heads repeat louder and louder that democracy was in jeopardy. Even our President repeats this outright lie.
Why do I use the word lie? Because he and his buddies know that democracy was not in jeopardy. And I use the word here only because that's the word that they use. They say the big lie is the claim that the election was fraudulent. I agree. That was a whopper. But to retort and say that democracy was in jeopardy is a pretty big stretch of the imagination.
Only a bunch of ideologues could have come to that conclusion. Or maybe what they really mean is that democracy only exists when Democrats have their way?
Yes, people broke windows and scared the crap out of a bunch of elected officials. Did it look like they were going to stay and impose a new government? Did they plant a new flag in Pelosi's chair? Did they read aloud their new constitution? Did the government of the people disappear?
Nope none of that. What happened is that a bunch of angry and violent and lawless people tried to make a statement. The statement, I think, is that that there might have been voting irregularities. Voting irregularities do threaten democracy. Voting irregularities have happened before. It's possible.
As I said above, I don't think there were significant irregularities. But what you saw vividly is that if the wrong party brings that point up -- then those people are spreading the big lie. They screamed that democracy is threatened if someone talks about voting irregularities. I don't think so. What I think is that regardless of party, if someone believes there are voting problems -- then those people are standing up for democracy. They should stand up. They should accuse.
If they are wrong, then lets do what we used to do at Ponce de Leon Junior High School -- when they stand up then lets pull their pants off in front of everyone. A joking way to say it, but if someone alleges voting irregularities and they are wrong, then they should be punished severely. People should know in advance that we don't put up with those kinds of lies. We shouldn't be vigilantes. We should have laws and legal processes that can be enforced against this kind of despicable behavior. Give them an award if they are right. A jail term if wrong.
What is democracy anyway? Is it really so fragile? Democracy means we have free elections. Democracy means we elect people who represent us. Those people enact laws to improve and safeguard our homeland. Democracy means all our votes are counted. It also means we have laws that govern who can vote and who cannot vote. Government should make sure we don't violate that trust and vote twice or somehow disturb the rights of others to freely vote once.
We have a tradition of democracy. Nearly 250 years of democracy. I don't think it is too fragile. This is not Latvia or Cuba. Democracy was not threatened by a bunch of thugs in the streets. It was a lie to say that elections were rigged by Democrats. It was a lie to say that democracy was threatened by Republicans.
Let's get together. Let's kiss and hug and be proud of the fact that we live in an incredibly terrific free nation. If you don't agree, then why not spend a little time in Ukraine or Cuba. Bon voyage. See how much you like those places.
Dear LSD. Not shure wut your point is/wuz other than we should set aside political differences ‘n kiss/hug ‘n play a virtual game of Spin The Boddle . . . not the real deal kind you play’d at Ponce High. Political differences are here to stay at least for our foreseeable lives.
ReplyDeleteThe findings of the current House “(sham) investigation” into January 6th will never be accepted by everyone and a follow-on by Rs if they win back the House this year also will not be accepted: Any integrity/accuracy in those investigations will be defeated by political differences.
You say irregularities occurred in the election (axtually in every election), but they were not significant. But wut if they were were aktually the tip of wide-spread fraud? We’ll never know cuz the courts sed the accusers who stood up (as you say they should) either didn’t have stand’n (huh?) or their evidence wuz insufficient (huh? huh?). Since when do courts render judgement before all evidence is presented and/or investigations completed? Me thinks the “courts” rendered speedy judgements to avoid a delay in declaring a winner as wuz done in Bush/Gore. Could’a been a whole lot-0-fraud under that tip of de berg but we’ll never know if the “big lie” of wide-spread election fraud wuz axtually twue.
Therz a rule in academia testing that sez if any part of a statement is false then the whole statement is false. Therefore, and henceforth, since the statements—er, lies, as you say—pertaining to January 6th and the election contain falsities they are false: We’ll never know de twue twoof.
As long as there is sentiment to allow non-citizens to vote, to allow voting without ID (including mail-in), voting laws (per states’ constitutions) not enforced, ballot-counting after voting is closed, ballot harvesting, etc. . . . all predicated on political differences, democracy will be in jeopardy.
Two hourz til I spin a boddle of cold chardonnay out’a de frig. Cheerz!
Thanks Tuna. So long as either extreme wants to call the other side liars with respect to difficult and complicated questions -- there is little room for progress and we will be stuck with less than adequate voting protections.
DeleteAs someone who was at the Capitol on January 6th covering the events I find your dismissive attitude of the events distressing. (you can see my work here: http://www.robbhill.com/ppp)
ReplyDeleteDid the insurrectionists have a plan? No, clearly not. All they had was ire, frustrations, and Trump's lies. But that was more than enough to storm the Capitol.
As we learn more and more about all of the events of that day and leading up to it, a clearer picture is emerging.
Storming the castle, as it were, wasn't the goal. It was the catalyst to stopping the certification of the election. If they had managed to do that and actually lock up the gears of government, Trump could have called for martial law as a way to remain in office. Plus, Trump pressured the GA Secretary of State to find votes. Add on top of that the 8 Republican senators and 139 Republican house members who voted to sustain the AZ objection.
McConnell let Trump play the voter fraud card for as long as he could. Yes, you have the right to claim fraud but when it's proven over and over that there wasn't any - when your own lawyer says there wasn't any fraud in the election - you should then shut your trap. Trump and his followers haven't. McConnell can't put that bronzer back in the tube.
Because of Trump's constant yammering about a fraudulent election he's getting his followers to believe that no election, past or future, that he doesn't win is a fraud.
This is the real danger -- and current Republican strategy.
Thanks Robb. Well said. I don't disagree with much that you said. Yes, they tried to stop certification. And yes, I agree there was no election fraud. And Rs continue to say it was. Where we differ is qualitatively as you look at the parts and conclude that democracy was threatened. What I said in my blog post is that while I see all the parts too -- and I see what might have happened. But thankfully the worst fears were not realized. Democracy in the USA withstood the threats. Trumps and some of his supporters continue to be a threat, but I don't think they can succeed.
DeleteWhen I was a child, ex-slaves were still alive, and the USA was judged to be a democracy before the Civil War. It is too early to pat ourselves on the back now and too early celebrate.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Much more still needs to be done.
Delete