The debate whether the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election was fairly conducted has been so bitterly and so viciously waged that it’s hard to see how the truth will ever come out…
(It may take 50 or 60 years if the 1960 election is any indication.)
Neither side has exactly covered itself in glory in that regard, with wild claims and allegations that call into question those who made them’s credibility.
It’s the electoral equivalent of the run up to the First World War, with all the participants so recklessly escalating their rhetoric that it made it difficult to stand down.
In fact, it was uncomfortably close to the kind of disputed election outcomes, complete with threats by the military to intervene, that we see in Third World countries.
I see two issues in considering the fairness of how the election was conducted.
The first is whether it was rigged by those in authority to get the outcome they wanted. Rigging means “to arrange in a dishonest way for selfish advantage; manipulate fraudulently; fix;/ to rig an election.” Webster’s New World Dictionary (1982), p. 1225.
It’s hard to claim that this didn’t happen after the victors openly bragged about doing it.
In a Time Magazine story published February 4th – The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved The 2020 Election – liberal journalist Molly Ball indulged in an extended gloatathon on how a “conspiracy” or “cabal” (her words, not mine) of “well-funded powerful people” were able to get “the desired outcome” to the 2020 election.
Virtually every significant American institution from the AFL-CIO to Silicon Valley, to the Chamber of Commerce, to Black Lives Matter and every other left-wing group under the sun were united in this crusade to “save” not just the 2020 election but American democracy itself.
At this point it’s necessary for the unitiated to get out your Captain Midnight Decoder rings to understand what’s being said:
When a Democratic candidate for President loses to a Republican that means democracy is threatened. After all, a small “d” democracy is only truly healthy when the big “D” Democratic Party wins all elections and holds all power.
According to Ball, the anti-Trump Resistance got states to “change voting systems.”
That’s a euphemism for eliminating safeguards against election fraud; like photo I.D, signature requirements, and showing a chain of custody in the handling of ballots. Conversely, we’re told that the Resistance fought “voter suppression” lawsuits, which translates as any legal effort to prevent time honored Democratic methods like vote harvesting, e.g. paying party workers for each ballot collected from nursing home residents.
Ball also brags that the Resistance plotters “successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder stand against ‘disinformation’ and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.”
This is, of course, code for stopping coverage of stories damaging to the Biden campaign like the Hunter Biden laptop expose in the New York Post by blocking it on Twitter.
What is the most surprising disclosure is her boast that the anti-Trump cabal funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in public and private funds to local election officials to “ensure the proper outcome of the election.”
What if wealthy conservative billionaires like Robert Mercer and Tim Mellon had funneled such sums ($500 million) towards efforts to get out the GOP vote? Democrats and/or liberals would have been outraged.
Private money should not go to election officials to get the results the donors want, any more than private money should go to state court systems, local prosecutors’ officers, or state attorneys general to ensure legal outcomes which benefit the donors and harm the donor’s adversaries.
I’m sure there are a lot of people who don’t like Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates but we can’t just write checks to the U.S. Department of Justice Anti-trust Division to go after them as monopolists. So why should Mark Zuckerberg get to pay state and local election officials to bend the laws to defeat Donald Trump?
Of course, Molly Ball would say that these average, every day, Silicon Valley and Wall Street billionaires were not really working to defeat Trump.
The “desired outcome” they were working to ensure she repeatedly insists (through the deeply noble, public-spirited left-wing activists she quotes at length in her article) was a decisive, clear-cut result so that the country might be spared a divisive, protracted election dispute.
Funny, I seem to recall these same people not dropping their outrage over the 2000 Florida recount for at least a year after the election. Continue reading →