A demonstration is planned for September 17, 2021 (this coming Saturday as I write this) to protest the prosecution of people arrested for illegal behavior on January 6th of this year. The insurrectionists are charged with illegally entering the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. and using violence in an attempt prevent Congress from certifying the election of Joe Biden as president.
What most people appalled by this action don’t acknowledge enough is that governments are among the most dangerous institutions on earth. They claim the right to determine who may use physical force in society, under what conditions force may be used, and what instruments of force are permissible. In order to enforce these rights, governments maintain an advantage in physical might over everyone else.
The ability to overpower all others has tempted states to misbehave. In Russia, citizens are imprisoned for speaking out against government incompetence or corruption. China seems to be persecuting their Muslim minority Uighurs. In our own country, the government appears to have broken some of its own laws through illegal domestic surveillance, and lied repeatedly about the progress of wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. So, the skepticism in some quarters of government actions at all levels – local, state, and federal – isn’t entirely irrational and may be related to skepticism regarding election integrity.
On the other hand, we all need to believe things that we can’t verify for ourselves. Can you prove from your own experience that World War I actually took place? Can you prove that the earth goes around the sun instead of the sun around the earth? It doesn’t look that way. We mostly accept cultural beliefs that are backed by experts and documents.
Consider documents first. In our society journalists compete with one another to expose government wrong-doing. Winners may get a Pulitzer, a promotion, and talk show notoriety. Why should we believe such journalists? Documents, including visual and sound recordings, are the main keys to justifying their claims. Edward Snowden revealed documents that showed our government was engaging in illegal domestic spying. Documents show that our government was lying about the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We have video of Russian dissident Aleksei Navalny in jail. Journalists support government claims only when they lack conflicting documentary evidence. No one has produced documents credibly challenging the integrity the 2020 presidential election.
We rely on experts in conjunction with documents. Meteorologists tell us if a storm is coming; economists tell us the size of the national debt; doctors tell us if our cholesterol level is too high; and mechanics tell us what’s wrong with our cars. If you’re not an expert, how would you go about confirming or disconfirming that a storm is coming, that the national debt is increasing, or that you’re cholesterol level is healthful. We’re at a loss without experts.
So, think about it. Why do many people believe that the 2020 election was stolen? The experts in this field, both Republicans and Democrats, all say that it was a fair election. No documents credibly indicating falsification of results have been revealed, although reporters salivate at the prospect. Our country has accepted election results for over 200 years. So what’s the problem?
It’s former President Trump, who said before the election, when he was down in the polls, that the only way he could lose is if the election were stolen. Is he a credible source? It seems rather self-serving – heads I win (if the vote count is in my favor), tails you lose (if the vote count is in your favor it was a fraud). Kids who try that on playgrounds usually go home alone. President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, down in the polls, claims the same thing now. Do you believe him?
Former President Trump is far from a credible source. He said he didn’t benefit financially from the 2017 tax cuts but won’t reveal the documents, his tax returns, which would to prove this. His claim that the election was stolen not only lacks documents, but conflicts with Republican victories in Congress. It’s common sense that if Democrats had stolen the election from Trump, they would have stolen some House and Senate seats as well.
In short, the insurrectionists and those who agree that the election was stolen are defying common sense as well as the means that we all use to evaluate claims – documents and experts. For them, Trump’s victory is a preferred fantasy. But relying on fantasy jeopardizes our country. If preferred fantasies are allowed, Democrats could claim the national debt is a myth, just as others claim that climate change is a hoax, so we can spend $7 trillion on infrastructure. They could storm the Capitol to get their way. Is this what those supporting the January 6th insurrectionists really want? Think about it.
You can respond by e-mail at wenz.peter@uis.edu.
Comments