And war, civil and uncivil.
It is my contention that we are just one bad event away from a shooting civil war in America — and in fact if you ask Steve Scalise it may have already started.
The political process is often fraught with severe language, money and hard-fought contests. But in the end there are winners and losers; a person who loses by one vote still lost, while the person who wins by one vote still gets the office. The margin is immaterial and, in the context of a Presidential Election, the popular vote doesn’t matter; it is the electoral vote that counts and thus all candidates tailor their particular political process toward that outcome.
Twice now in recent history the left has refused to accept the outcome of that process. The first was Bush .v. Gore, which went to the US Supreme Court. Said court wisely refused to intervene in what was a political process, leaving said process intact, and Bush was seated as President. In doing so the issue of refusal to accept the outcome of an election was left for another day, and, for the most part, the left bided their time and then came back with a winner in 2008 in the form of Barack Obama.
But this time no such thing happened. Hillary Clinton lost. She didn’t lose by much, but by the rules of the contest she lost. Unfortunately the left not only refused to accept the outcome at the time two years later it still refuses to accept the outcome.
Let me be clear on this — if you’re bitter that there was no President Pantsuit that’s fine. Losses can be bitter, especially when you really think you should have won. But no matter what you think by the rules of the contest Hillary lost to Trump — period.
But if you go beyond being bitter, start up hashtags like “#Resist” and then put that into action both inside and outside the government to disregard and disrupt the results of a valid electoral process you are not only violating the law you are inciting a shooting civil war.
This sort of activity by people inside the government is treading right to if not over the line of insurrection. The use of government force for unlawful purpose, intentionally, meets the definition; it is an attempt to overthrow the law of the United States by corrupting the monopoly on deadly force that the government has and directing it unlawfully against certain people for political purposes. This is not a “petty offense”; it is a direct assault on and attempt to overthrow the result of a lawful elective process and according to the above link it’s still going on today.
If you’re aggrieved by an election’s results you have every right to print up a sign and go picket on a public street or other public place. You can take out all the political advertisements you wish and make your best effort to get a different result the next time around. But you do not have the right to enter into a restaurant where someone is eating dinner, which is private property, and assault said person because they happen to be a member of that political party. That is a violation of the law in that it constitutes assault and is begging for an immediate outbreak of violence in response.
There are many who, I’m sure, will say I’m over-reading this. Nope. You’re wrong. I have studied history for decades, from times long gone to far more-recent examples, and this is an unbroken pattern.
Nor am I calling for a “desired outcome.” Nobody in their right mind takes rocks made out of tens of kilograms of pure U-235 and smashes them together with their bare hands. The outcome of doing that is a known fact and you have to be flat-out nuts to desire or effort toward that happening.
But that’s where we’re headed and it is not just the left that is responsible — it is also those on the right and center including the current Republican Senate members who are tolerating and kowtowing to a strident group of nuts who refuse to respect the political process and accept its results. Never mind those in the House and Senate who have continually refused to bring impeachment or expulsion proceedings immediately against any and all in their bodies that refute a right to due process, a basic foundation of our country’s political and legal system.
He’s right, right down the line; the only thing I’m inclined to quibble with is his demand that this be stopped. I don’t think it CAN be, and I’m damned near certain it even if it could be, it won’t. Cataclysmic wars throughout history have followed this same pattern, just as Karl says: they’re always the last thing anyone seriously expects—UNEXPECTED!™despite myriad obvious signs so easily recognized in hindsight. And they never end up yielding the results their early instigators hoped for, either.