During the third presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle, president-elect Trump refused to say straight out that he would accept whatever the results of the 2016 election were, since a close finish might open the door to allegations of fraud.
In this, Trump was perfectly consistent with the actions of Al Gore in 2000. Nevertheless, the national media, as it often does when Republicans dare to act like Democrats, portrayed Trump’s relatively reasonable stance as an attack on the principles of American democracy. Never mind that Trump openly stated that he would accept the results if they weren’t close, but would keep the possibility of lawsuits open if that weren’t the case. His statement was, according to the Leftist-dominated media, a full frontal assault on the peaceful transition of power.
Apparently, they learned quite a bit about full frontal assaults on the peaceful transition of power, seeing as that is precisely what the media is presently attempting, with the enthusiastic support of the former defenders of Clinton’s honor, the Democrat party. Specifically, thanks to allegations of Russian influence on the election that could charitably be described as shaky, the media and the Democrats are now portraying Trump as a usurper of the presidency. Without a shred of evidence that Trump’s bid was actually helped by any of that influence.
Unfortunately, it seems to us that the national media views that transition of power as only legitimate when it does not challenge the liberal, globalist order that they prize.
This particular shameless line of attack started with a statement by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who stated that he views the president-elect as an “illegitimate president,” and thus would not be attending Trump’s inauguration. Lewis is free to do whatever his conscience dictates, of course, as he already did when he refused to attend George W. Bush’s inauguration. President-elect Trump sensibly pointed out this particular tic of Lewis’, which should have been the end of the discussion seeing as the act is hardly unprecedented.
Yet at press time, over 60 Democrats have followed Lewis’ lead, all while being egged on by the media, ostensibly out of solidarity with Lewis, who they correctly identify as a civil rights hero. However, Lewis’ record on civil rights shouldn’t provide a free pass when it comes to criticism of his record: a record that looks like a run-of-the-mill machine politician despite his previous acts of courage during the civil rights era. Further, the media’s flagrant encouragement of such childish behavior with Lewis as their shield is truly hypocritical.
The obvious point of hypocrisy is that the media, as already noted, treated even the potential questioning of an incoming President’s legitimacy as a dangerous assault on democracy when Trump suggested it. Further, they were all too happy to rake Trump and his surrogates over the coals for impugning the motives of Khizr Khan, a Gold Star parent, for his criticism of Trump. In fact, we agree that the president-elect stepped out of line in criticizing the Khans, whose loss of their child is very near the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of this country.
Yet Khizr Khan’s question in his Democratic National Convention Speech – “Have you even read the Constitution?” – could just as readily be applied to today’s media in the face of Lewis’ comments. There is, for example, no rule in the constitution that says a President whose election is favored by a foreign power is automatically illegitimate. If there were, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose reelection was explicitly assisted by the British government, should never have been readmitted to office. And speaking of Roosevelt, there is no evidence that he knew of, or condoned, that British influence to assist him. Nor is there any such evidence with regard to Donald Trump and Russia. Indeed, the only “evidence” that exists to suggest that Trump knowingly collaborated with the Russian government comes from the sub-tabloid “dossier” published by Buzzfeed in a desperate attempt to smear Trump: a document which even hardened Trump critics such as former Bush speechwriter David Frum regard as a nonsensical distraction. In other words, whatever gravitas John Lewis’ past record conveys, the McCarthyite argument that Trump is a Manchurian Candidate puppet for Russia has no evidence for it, and so deserves nothing but dismissal. That the media will not treat it that way is a shameful reflection on them, not Trump.
Moreover, if Gold Star parents like the Khans are off-limits for media and political figures to attack for their motives, then surely the incoming and duly-elected commander-in-chief merits the same level of deference until he is sworn in. After all, as President Obama has courageously pointed out, the peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of American democracy. And Obama, if not some members of his staff, has been more than gracious in facilitating such a transition. The fact that the media will not behave with similar respect is not only childish; it is further evidence that the lessons of Trump’s election have yet to penetrate the minds of the Acela corridors self-appointed guardians of good taste.
There is plenty of room to criticize the actions of president-elect Trump, particularly as he prepares to take the oath of office and make decisions that will affect Americans from all walks of life. But to encourage half of the country to treat him as an illegitimate claimant to the office which the electoral college granted him is simply an invitation to a coup by his opponents. A media which waxes rhapsodic about the transition of power should know this. Unfortunately, it seems to us that the national media views that transition of power as only legitimate when it does not challenge the liberal, globalist order that they prize. Thus, the actions of the media in response to Lewis’ stunt reveals an ominous fact: that they prize the tenets of Acela Corridor globalist liberalism over democracy itself.