Here is a thought I hope we all agree with:
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof.”
If your response was to say, “Wait, who said that?” then I would argue you’re missing the point. Is there any set of circumstances in which that sentiment would not be correct?
As far as the current election for president is concerned, I am thankful that there are fewer and fewer steps left on the road to us not having to listen to any more of Donald Trump’s fact-free claims that massive voter fraud cost him re-election. Yesterday a federal appeals court rejected the Trump campaign’s latest effort to overturn the vote in Pennsylvania. Decisively, succinctly, and leaving no apparent room for reasonable rebuttal. And for those who believe this matters—or matters most—all three judges on the panel who returned this unanimous decision were nominated to this court by Republican presidents; the one who wrote this opinion was nominated by Donald Trump. The summary is elegant in its clarity:
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” (emphasis added)
It’s the same story in most of the dozens of lawsuits: the campaign has provided no evidence of the widespread fraud it claims has taken place. But it continues to make the claims, perhaps hopeful to eventually run into a judge who isn’t too particular about evidence of a crime. Classic Trump: it’s true because I say it is true, and how dare you question me!
This ruling came a day after the president made his first appearance since the election at which he responded to reporters’ questions. The headline out of that was his response when asked if he would leave the White House if the Electoral College votes for Joe Biden; he said he would, and “you know that.” The fact is, we know nothing of the sort, and we still don’t know it just because he said it. Because (as I have mentioned from time to time) Donald Trump lies. About everything. People who should know better—by which I mean, everybody—saw that performance and came away saying, whew, finally, Trump has promised a peaceful transition of power. Huh? Why would you take Trump at his word about this now?
(More broadly, I still don’t get why so many Americans trust him on anything, and are so militant in their defense of him when someone points out a clear falsehood. The evidence of their own eyes and ears and nose and fingers and memory doesn’t matter to the believers: they stare straight at a patch of black color that Trump has said is white, and they will proclaim without hesitation that it is white…and not, mind you, that they see it to be white, but that it IS white, that there is no wiggle room about it nor any possibility that the color in question could be anything but the color that Trump said it is. What happened to these people, that they would reflexively support a man who so demonstrably does not support them, and who in his own life does not live up to the personal standards these people have so loudly proclaimed are absolutely necessary for a president?)
I think we need to focus on a point Brian Klaas made yesterday:
“It’s not up to him.” It’s up to the voters, and they made it pretty clear who they want to be the next president. Yes, Trump won an historic total of popular votes…but Biden won more, more than 6 million more (and counting), and Biden has won a clear majority of the electoral votes, too—the same number that Trump won four years ago to secure that election.
It was one thing for Trump to win a first term, primarily (I believe) on the votes of people who were not thrilled with him but could not stomach voting for his Democratic opponent. I’m much more troubled for America’s future when I realize that 74 million Americans voted for Trump this time, knowing what he’s done during the last four years! The Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has been considering the question, and he generated some thoughtful replies (read the thread):
…voting for a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent guy who barely conceals his contempt for his own supporters.” I honestly have no idea how we’re supposed to deal with this. To say that many Trump supporters basically engaged in a massive self-own sounds condescending; yet what could be more condescending than pretending that this isn’t exactly what happened? Again, I have no answer to all of this. I don’t think there are magic words that will make all this resentment disappear; policies that help working Americans might help, but should be done mainly bc they’re the right thing to do. Anyway, I don’t know the answers; all I can suggest is to be honest and promote good policies, knowing full well that the political rewards may be elusive.
Or is it, maybe, as simple as this: