America’s Second Civil War is heating up. Those looking to November for clarity will be disappointed.
The progressive mob defines one side: Its animating belief is that the United States is inherently and irredeemably racist and unjust, and it seeks to abandon the country’s founding ideals and transform it into something fundamentally different.
Its candidate is Joe Biden.
It doesn’t matter that many in the mob dislike Biden. Nor does it matter that many of Biden’s supporters don’t believe that he’ll provide adult supervision to moderate the mob. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—a far savvier politician—couldn’t control her caucus. The barely competent Biden has already disowned his senatorial record, adopted the language of transformation, and campaigned as a sequestered figurehead. If elected, he’ll govern the same way. A vote for Biden is a vote for the mob.
The other side believes in American exceptionalism. It sees that the United States has brought greater justice, prosperity, equality, and opportunity to more people than any country in recorded history. It seeks to restore America’s founding ideals—in a phrase, to Make America Great Again! Its candidate is Donald Trump.
It doesn’t matter that many of these American restorationists don’t like Trump. Nor does it matter that some disagree with his approaches to trade, immigration, or pandemic response. What matters is that Trump fights the progressive mob and stands strong for America’s founding ideals. A vote for Trump is a vote for the Constitution.
It’s thus easy to portray November’s election as a choice between transformative mob rule and a restored constitutional republic. That framing, however, ignores that we’re in the midst of a civil war.
Civil wars never end at the ballot box—particularly when sizable numbers of voters doubt the freedom, fairness, and accuracy of the election. Thanks to the progressive Resistance, that’s precisely where we’re heading. Over the past four years, the Resistance has heightened America’s sensitivity to foreign “interference” and showed foreign powers how to escalate partisan antipathy, while spending nothing and doing nothing.
Democrats have spent decades promoting initiatives they claim are necessary for ballot access. They’ve opposed IDs, eliminated advanced registration, introduced early voting, legalized ballot harvesting, and increased voting by mail. Whatever else these new rules purport to achieve, they each increase the potential for fraud.
Because of social distancing, voting by mail and ballot harvesting will reach historic levels this November. As a consequence, the potential for fraud will also be far higher than ever. America’s enemies can exploit that opening with little more than chatter about a foreign power printing millions of fraudulent ballots and mailing them to precincts around the country. In fact, this ploy is most effective if the reports are complete fabrications. Remember: the goal isn’t to alter the outcome or elevate a candidate; the goal is to undermine the legitimacy of the election.
Such rumors would be entirely plausible. Anyone capable of forging $100 bills can forge a ballot that fools an untrained local official. Anyone capable of hacking corporate or government systems possesses the cyber skills needed to hack voter rolls. Accessing the U.S. mail anonymously is hardly a logistical challenge.
Any number of foreign countries could flood our polling places with fraudulent ballots if they chose to do so. What constrains them is that getting caught tampering with a U.S. election could bring significant consequences. Standing falsely accused of election tampering, knowing full well that there can be no tangible evidence, is another matter entirely.
Once these reports come out, the U.S. government would have no choice but to investigate. The investigators, in turn, would find (at a minimum) routine irregularities but no evidence of a flood of fraudulent ballots. Millions will take this absence of evidence as proof of a coverup. The establishment figure running the investigation, along with appointees of the candidate declared November’s winner, will have conspired with a foreign government to steal the presidency. Will the president respond with an unprovoked war? Or will he confirm his status as a foreign plant?
Remember that in a civil war, few are prepared to believe that the other side is acting in good faith.
Far from determining the outcome of America’s Second Civil War, November’s election will determine which side controls which federal resources as the battles get bloodier.
Unless, that is, we choose an alternative path. Measures designed to enhance ballot security and election integrity could spare us this nightmare scenario. An election that requires IDs and in-person voting—possibly over a few days in light of social distancing requirements—would reduce the plausibility of massive fraud.
The Democrats, however, would never let such requirements become law; they would cast such a plan as a structurally racist expression of voter suppression. As absurd as such a claim might be, however, the Democrats would have a point.
When your goal is to transform the United States into something that pleases a progressive mob, free and fair elections hardly serve your interests.
