Democracy Means That Sometimes You Lose

The 2018 elections prove what began to become obvious in 2016:  many Democrats believe that if they or their candidate does not win then the result is illegitimate.

One would have to have been living on a deserted island for the last 2 years to not realize that the Democrats still cannot accept the fact that their presidential candidate lost the election.  They continue to mount attack after attack on the winner of that election to prove that his presidency is somehow illegitimate.

Now we see the same sentiment expressed in many of the midterm elections.  We could begin by talking about the questionable tactics following close votes and then the sudden appearance of previously undiscovered votes – these suddenly produced ballots may simply be the result of incompetence, or they may be the result of something more.  Perhaps they reflect the view that any means necessary, including counting illegitimate ballots, is acceptable in order to produce a win for your candidate.  We will probably never have a definitive answer on that question.  But, we will always wonder if the call of the losing Democrat candidates to “count every vote” is meant to include both legitimate and illegitimate votes.

But, beyond that, look at the difficulty that the Democrats have in conceding.  When it is obvious they cannot win they will file lawsuit after lawsuit to attack the results.  In many of these races, the national and outside Democrat interests have millions invested in the race (making politics anything but local!) and even after a win for their candidate is completely hopeless and the candidate concedes, the winners are immediately attacked as illegitimate with assertions that they somehow stole the elections, as well as having the now typical Democrat epithets thrown at them (racist, supremacist, etc.).  The voters are then also attacked (for example, a recent CNN panel attacked “white women Trump voters” as racist and white supremacists).

When they finally realize that the votes just are not there for their victory, the Democrats often concede without conceding.  In Florida, Gillum conceded, withdrew his concession, conceded again.  Nelson, who finally conceded to Scott, did so only after filing scores of lawsuits.  In Georgia, Abrams finally conceded but refuses to call Kemp’s victory legitimate, saying “I think it was wrong.” (apparently if you lose then that is wrong, and the winner’s victory is illegitimate.) 

So what does this inability to accept one’s loss say about one’s understanding of our democracy?  It is an inability to accept the very core premise of our democracy – that there will be a fair and honest vote in which the people will decide.  This means that sometimes the people do not want what your candidate is selling and you lose.  And the loser needs to lose gracefully, concede, to wish the winner and our democracy well.  Only those who believe that they know better than the people, that they are somehow entitled to be in power, would see a loss as something so wrong that it makes the victory of their opponent illegitimate.

Yet, this is exactly how many Democrats seem to view our elections.  They believe they should be in power because they know what is right for all of us.  They would prefer not to listen to the people’s voices and, when those voices disagree with theirs then they simply believe that those voices are wrong or that there has been some illegal act that has stolen victory from their candidate.  They claimed the Russians did it in 2016.  In 2018 they claim that it is somehow the fault of a variety of perfectly valid election laws.  They claim unspecified tampering.   They blame the voters.  Yet, isn’t it interesting, that any actual evidence of tampering more often than not points towards the Democrats.

In this country, we have elections and when they are over, the losers, while unhappy, need to accept and respect the result. They many not like the individual who now holds the office, but they need to respect the office and give support to its holder, because such support reflects a support for our country and its democracy.  And note, support does not necessarily mean agreement with every policy decision or action; our country thrives on diverse views.  But, our country also thrives on elections that provide the will of the people in our government of, for, and by the people.  

The Democrats' inability to accept and their readiness to attack the will of the people is very telling.  In my opinion it evidences not a concern for the people or for our democracy, but rather an unquenchable thirst for their own power – a thirst that is willing to ignore the people and our very democracy in order to achieve that focused goal.   It is the similar thirst for power that one sees in the sham elections that occur regularly in a variety of dictatorships around the world. 

This thirst of the Democrats shows no sign of abating.  With a majority in the House, rather than work on legislation for the good of the people and the country, the Democrats appear to be focused only on investigations and attacks against anyone in power who is not one of them.  Rather than accepting a variety of state elections and letting those who won get on with the business of governing, the Democrats will use the courts to mount attack after attack upon the winners and the results.

Disagreements over policy are one thing, they are a healthy requirement of democracy, but attacks on any differing voice and a total intolerance of opposing views is completely contrary to the very core of our democracy.  Yet, that intolerance is exactly what the Democrats inability to accept the legitimacy of an opponent’s victory reveals.  A true believer in our democratic form of government will respect and support, not attack the voice of the people.   They understand that their power is subservient to that of the people.

The Democrats simply do not understand that Democracy means that sometimes you lose and that the appropriate response is to accept that defeat, continue to express your differing views while working with the winner for the good of the country and its people.