"Election-denial"
What do we do with it?
This notion of “election-denial” is quickly becoming all-consuming. I use that term generically here to mean all kinds of “They cheated!”/”Not my President!”-stuff which shares the same goal of denying election results. I was thinking today in the shower (because that’s how weird my mind is that it’s running through shit like this while I’m shampooing my hair) of what we do about it because it’s become so ravenous and is spreading to all camps in many different forms. That will steer us (all) in a really bad direction. It presents quite a problem.
There is even a new form of it that has sprouted out in the last few weeks, a new evolution of this. And that is the chilling-effect demand we are not to question any election result. That to do so is wrong, as if inquiry alone presents a problem and a “danger”. That is insane! It’s actually Propaganda 101 because to NOT ALLOW inquiry of the process or scrutiny of the results is where the danger lies. It’s an open door to a literal “end of democracy”. That’s why we have processes for this. As in, codified law and procedures that tell us how we can inquire and scrutinize elections and ultimately bring challenge if we think we see impropriety in the results. And there is nothing wrong with doing so. No more so than a criminal defense attorney defending a guy we “all know is bad”. It’s a similar danger in not allowing the scrutiny/forcing the other side to prove its case.
My point with this all, the conclusion I reached in that shower, is that ultimately it is just an evidentiary issue. No, it is not wrong for a person or party to utilize our framework of challenge to do just that. Not anymore than filing a civil suit against someone. A suit with much greater implications. And like in that civil suit, the side bringing an election dispute has the burden of proof in moving the needle as to why their claim has merit. And if they’re able to do this, then hell yeah the other side should have to respond!
The allegations that underly this all have become so insidious. They really are a bigger problem than the problem itself. And that too can be ended by focusing on this as an evidentiary issue. It’s undeniable that this “election-denier” accusation was utilized as propaganda to defame GOP candidates for political purposes. It was so shallow that our major “news” networks would describe GOP politicians by whether they were “there on January 6” or not. “Election-denier” was literally used as 2022's Scarlett Letter. What does this term even mean? How could it possibly be applied to one side only? Even NBC News finally ran a piece acknowledging how dumb and hollow that is…
This all ends when we view it through the evidentiary lens. You’re not an “election-denier”, you’re someone who brought a challenge. Do you have the goods or not? If you do, let’s see them. If you don’t, we're not interested in your complaint. It’s a harsh cut that will leave out some sympathetic claims, but I don't see what other choice we have. And I am genuinely worried about this consuming us. It already largely is. The rhetoric on Twitter since the midterms has been deranged! Everyone from all sides now just reverts back to allegations of cheating when things don’t go their way. And it goes beyond that, really. Most present 100% firm in their convictions, even when their position is completely unfounded. “Unfounded” Aha! Shit or get off the pot, pal.
You can apply this to 2020 quite easily; in fact, I did. Those who read my Twitter rantings are probably aware that I don’t talk much about 2020 election shenanigans. Is that because I believe there were none? No. I believe there has been election fraud going back to Lincoln. It’s always a matter of scale and, most importantly, proof! I don’t believe the sensational stuff, but there are several wrinkles to that cycle that bother me. So why don’t I rant about it? Because it was never proven, and plenty of people had plenty of time. It's as simple as that. If competent evidence had been presented, game-changer! But that never happened. And so I was able to move on, quite easily. I keep things in the back of my mind, energies spent looking forward are worthwhile, but I don’t obsess on the past. Everyone is obsessed on pinning you down with the question “Do you believe Biden won a free and fair election?”. See, that’s the attempt to brand you with that Letter again. But this evidentiary standard solves that too. You don’t need to opine on this. You don’t need to give these predators the ammunition they seek. Was there competent evidence? Then I believe. If not, then I moved on. I don’t need to analyze it all for you, the court did that.
Now, one drawback to approaching this in such a rigid legal manner is that people like to abuse the litigation process. They use it as their weapon. But hell, we're already deep into that problem as Team Clinton used $50M of our money and most of Trump's term using the IC and NatSec as a weapon, so it can't really get any worse… it can just get more balanced. And that’s key here. That’s what this has always been about. The same one-side favoritism and power brokering. The same Truman Show-herding as always. It was largely one big systemwide propaganda campaign. Let's begin approaching this as nothing more than a claim and evidence. We end all the madness.
