Election 2018: We the People, or the Mob?
Most elections center around policy issues: health care, the economy, or immigration. This election does not.
With the 2018 midterms approaching — and already underway in some states — it is time to examine what this election is really about. Most elections center around policy issues: health care, the economy, or immigration.
This election does not.
This election has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with principle. The tumultuous confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court revealed a stalwart partisanship of the Democrats, who — all except one — stood as a blockade against a good man. They relinquished basic legal principles such as “innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” to produce a smear campaign against a man who they perceived would threaten their power wielded through the Supreme Court. What leftists cannot accomplish through representative government they force through activist judges who manipulate the Constitution for political gain.
Judge Kavanaugh makes decisions according to the Constitution, not political persuasions. This is how it should be. This is equitable and fair. Yet a justice committed to the Constitution and not the whims of leftist orthodoxy compromises their hold of power.
Their response? Intimidation, protesters, screamers. A resistance campaign, much of which was bought and paid for by leftist groups and donors. Rather than representing “We the People,” paying agitators to change politics creates an oligarchy — a nation run by the wealthy elitists.
Moreover, the likes of Maxine Waters have encouraged violence, protests, and intimidation by calling for the #Resistance to harass anyone associated with the Trump administration. She stated:
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
This hatred of those who simply disagree with you is the definition of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance. No other sector would tolerate this type of intimidation and bullying. To put this into context, what if the two teams that competed for the Super Bowl title earlier this year had used the same intimidation tactics? What if Philadelphia Eagles fans were told to harass, protest, and make a scene if they saw a New England Patriots fan? What if the players for the Eagles harassed the kids of Patriot team members? Or shouted at them on the street? Or ran their families out of restaurants?
This would be unacceptable and an outrage. Yet it is “justified” and “acceptable” in the political context. Is this right?
Additionally, Hillary Clinton claims that Democrats cannot be civil until they have power. But if civility depends upon power, wouldn’t Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Tito, and Mussolini have stopped their violent pursuit of control once they achieved it?
The reality is this: When people claim to stop the violence after they “get there,” there is no end. Why? Because freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience always seem to get in the way. As long as there is freedom, there will be people who have divergent thoughts. Leftist orthodoxy cannot handle divergent thoughts because it compromises their desire for ideological conformity. This is why college campuses have limited free speech to particular “zones.” The totalitarian blueprint of the modern university that censors free thought is the future of America if we don’t speak up and if we don’t stand against those who seek to intimidate us.
It will always be easier to “do as you are told” and to live in such a way that the mob doesn’t harass your home, your work, or your children’s school. But this is the goal of all who use intimidation tactics. Their tactics are meant to silence opposition.
Watching the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, it became clear that the November vote has less to do with the economy and health care and more to do with the answer to one basic question: What kind of society do we want to be?
Do we want a society that interrupts, obstructs, and intimidates our judicial process? Or do we want a society that respects our laws, that listens, and that debates?
These are two visions of America: Rule of Law, or rule by lawlessness. Rule by representative government, or by protesters. Rule by “We the People,” or rule by the mob.
May we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Coming to a neighborhood near you if we don’t do something about it: