A Peaceful Transfer of Power Depends on a Peaceful Political System Daniel Greenfield
“Peaceful transfer of power” is the new Democrat media meme as of yesterday.
A peaceful transfer of power is of course important. But it’s a part of a peaceful political system. In the last five years, Democrat activists have violently threatened and harassed sitting members of the Senate, made violent threats to sitting members of the House, denied the legitimacy of the 2016 election, eavesdropped on Republican opponents using the NSA, have once again touched off and supported riots that are burning down parts of the country, and that’s hardly a full accounting.
Democrat elected officials and campaign officials have repeatedly threatened or talked about burning things down if they don’t get their way.
Even the term “peaceful transfer of power” is a farce after Democrat media has repeatedly spun violent riots as mostly peaceful protests.
On top of all that, the Democrats demanding a peaceful transfer of power refuse to commit to a normative election on the same terms as usual, and instead want to drag it on indefinitely until their operatives and activists harvest enough ballots to claim victory, while using social media to suppress any dissenting views.
None of this is peaceful.
A peaceful transfer of power is part of a system in which factions may furiously fight, but do so by recognized rules and within recognized limits. In other words, they respect the rule of law, they don’t engage in violence or harassment, and they don’t use an election as a platform to rig the system to make future elections null and void by, say, packing the courts, and adding four senators from imaginary states, before expanding the House of Representatives.
None of that’s peaceful. It’s a prelude not just to civil unrest, but civil war.
You can’t have a violent coup of an election that foreshadows absolute one-party tyranny and then demand a peaceful transfer of power.
Comments are closed.
