I received two emails critical of my last two posts. The first was a thoughtful critique; the second can only be described as a left-wing emotional rant. I wish to address these reader's concerns. I'll start with the first comment.
I was challenged on my saying that Clinton and Gore never accepted their defeats. Gore, recall, did challenge his loss in the Supreme Court. The Court did not find in Gore's favor, resulting in a victory by Bush. After saying that he disagreed with the Court's ruling, Gore nonetheless went on to say "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession." So, I will accept this critique. I do not accept the same as to Clinton. In 2020, 4 years after her election loss in 2016 to Trump, she was still saying "there was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level...we still don't know what really happened."
This writer also asserted that both parties supported dictators if they supported causes backed by the party. He then referred to Hungary and Russia. The US has, indeed, supported dictators when it has been in our interest to do so. He also asserts that the amount of money in politics is a threat to our democracy. This is a valid point that has been discussed by many for years. I suspect many books have been written about it, so I'll leave it up to my readers to decide what they think.
He made another frequently heard complaint about the electoral college, saying that the Founders did not have confidence that democracy could work. Books have been written about the various compromises that went into making up the Constitution. The electoral college was also a way to assure the smaller states that their interests would be considered when electing a president. And, there was no popular vote for Senators until 1914, except for one Senator being elected by popular vote in 1913. So, yes, that was a check on the popular will, which some of the Founders distrusted.
Another complaint about our democracy was the two party system, claiming that the candidates are out of touch with most Americans. Maybe. But that system has also lent a tremendous amount of stability to our country and political system - although the rancor between the two parties over the last few decades may undermine that stability. The writer did not agree that language was a true threat to our democracy. It is the punishment/ostracism by those who speak certain (usually conservative) non-woke, non-politically correct language that is the concern.
The second writer made various personal attacks against me. One is that I am "anti trans," and therefore not too confident in my own sexuality. I have expressed in another post that I have complete empathy for anyone who feels they were born into the wrong body. There is no way to conclude that I am "anti trans" from these posts. Somehow, this writer also concluded that I am in the same group who claim that gay people "groom" young children to be gay. I also don't know how he concluded that.
He then said he does not give a damn about what happens in Norway, apparently missing my point that Leftism is the same everywhere, and is a threat everywhere it exists. He also said that no one he knows is trying to punish anyone for their speech. Completely meaningless. Perhaps he does not know that, after the owner of Chick-fil-A expressed his personal opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the Mayors of big cities all across the country said they did not want Chick-fil-A doing business in their cities, or trying to open new locations. (See the 8/2/12 post.) These Mayors were all DEMOCRATS. And they seemed to believe that it was appropriate to have a political litmus test for the right to do business. Just as I said in these posts, if you do not speak as the Left wants, and they will try to hurt you; because the totalitarian Left has the right to punish those who disagree - the law and the Constitution be damned.
And this writer completely ignored the not so subtle threats made by DEMOCRATIC members of Congress to Meta, regarding what content they should allow on their sites, and who should be barred from those sites. The writer said Biden ran as a moderate because he IS a moderate. These two blog posts were about the Left in general, not specific to only Biden. But to say that Biden is a moderate takes me to "1984," where "war is peace." Biden may have run as a moderate, but he has governed as a Leftist.
This writer accepts no misinformation from the Left/Democrats. I suppose that means the border is closed if the Democrats and the W.H. say so. I suppose that means that Adam Schiff (who claimed to have conclusive proof of Russian collusion in 2016), along with the rest of the Democrats and mainstream media, who were pushing the false Russian collusion story, were not giving out misinformation. The same applies to the claim that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation - until it wasn't.
He did not understand the point about the Thomas Jefferson High School. Only Leftists would not celebrate their students' achievements, because of some false notion of "equity." Conservatives always celebrate the hard work that goes into having achievement and success. These students were punished for their success, because that success was not aligned with some woke, politically correct nonsense. And the totalitarian Left always thinks they have the right to punish others based upon their left-wing agenda.
To conclude, the first writer, while not addressing many of my points, did make reasoned arguments about our democracy, and about Al Gore. The second writer, as I have come to expect from the Left, engaged in personal attacks, and made arguments that were, respectfully, rubbish.
