I've tended to regard The American Conservative as basically a NeverTrump site and rarely go there. Today, however, totally by chance, I came across an article there that I liked quite well:
Memorandum: How The 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen
A political scientist examines the evidence and concludes that widespread fraud took place.
Claes G. Ryn is professor of politics and founding director of the new Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.
The bulk of the article is a review of why there is every reason to suspect fraud on a massive scale in the 2020 "election." You're all almost certainly familiar with the main outlines of what Ryn presents as indicative of fraud, but you may find it worth reading anyway--it's well presented and presents a broad brush picture. I want to focus on briefer parts of the article that offer food for thought.
First, in explaining why he decided to write this article--despite realizing that he wouldn't be changing any minds--Ryn offers this perspective. It's one which will make sense to most of us, but also one that few have thought about, since we're in a sense wrapped up in details close to home. Thus, the views of non-Americans has its own special value, especially given the generally anti-Trump background of most Europeans offering their views.
It should be obvious that the issue of the legitimacy of the election is too touchy and inflamed for my view of what happened to settle it for anyone. There are numerous legal challenges to the vote in a number of states. Those charging fraud have had just a few weeks to prepare their cases, and much of the supporting material is hard to understand for those who are not political scientists, computer geeks, or statisticians. Whatever the veracity of the allegations, there is a large and growing amount of material to consider—this despite the media mantra that the charges are “baseless” or “unsupported.”
It is widely recognized that especially in their coverage of matters related to Donald Trump, the mainstream media long ago abandoned any pretense of impartiality. It is nevertheless remarkable that the media have not investigated even the more plausible-looking of the allegations of vote fraud. It did not take me long to realize that the charges were far more serious and credible than the American public had been told. In fact, this memorandum reviews the election with special reference to the allegations of fraud. I had barely begun looking into them when I noticed that, very shortly after the election, European experts on American elections, some of whom also had advanced expertise in statistics, had published articles or given interviews in which they claimed to have seen clear evidence that the election was “rigged”! In Sweden of all places, an expert on American elections published a series of articles showing that Biden’s win in the swing states simply could not be explained without assuming major fraud. Since Donald Trump is even more disdained by the media in Europe than he is here, I was surprised to hear a few European commentators refer to the presidential election as if its fraudulence should be obvious to all. I became even more curious about puzzling aspects of the election, but was still skeptical. You can find support for virtually any point of view on the Internet.
Ryn also, but very briefly, addresses the issue of our courts' seemingly almost uniform indifference to the fraud that seems so patent. Again, this won't be news to most readers, but you may like the way Ryn explains it:
But have not the courts refused to give credence to charges of vote fraud? First of all, those making the charges have had to do so on the basis of just a few weeks of gathering data and affidavits and on the basis of electronic evidence and statistics hard to explain to laymen. They have also had to present their cases in largely unfriendly or hostile venues. The court system is no exception to the fading of America’s traditional culture and rule of law. For decades, American law schools have undermined that tradition by teaching law as a vehicle for implementing social justice and other “progressive” causes. Especially in the big cities, but also in the general court system and in the federal courts, highly partisan views are ubiquitous. Nobody familiar, for example, with Bruce Frohnen’s view of the current court system will expect much by way of devotion to law and impartiality in the older sense.
Finally, all the way at the end of the article, having reviewed the reasons why European experts regard the 'hoax' nature of our recent "election" as so self evident, Ryn considers the implications--both for our future as Americans as well as for America's place in the world. That last consideration is undoubtedly unsettling many governments around the world. To realize that America is now self reducing to the status of a Banana Republic when it used to be an anchor of stability. Ryn concludes:
... Open-minded people have to examine the evidence of fraud for themselves, that is, do what, from the beginning, Trump haters in both parties refused to do. I am embarrassed that sophisticated Europeans should have offered real and incisive analyses of suspicious features of the election while the American mainstream media simply turned a blind eye. Their facile dismissal of vote fraud and their running interference for one of the candidates is a striking example of the kind of lack of civic responsibility that one associates not with a constitutional republic but with a banana republic. Coming on top of years of more and more blatant partisanship, the conduct of the media during the 2020 campaign and after the election illustrates that the old spirit of America constitutionalism, the rule of law, and dispassionate, respectful public debate are fading away. Instead of countering the ever-growing cynicism, demagoguery, and corruption of politicians, the media are aligning themselves with and facilitating the efforts of one side in the current battle.
... Yet what I have found to date gives me no choice but to conclude that in the 2020 election, there was major and organized vote fraud and that it probably stole the election.
Those who simply assume the legitimacy of Biden’s victory are willfully ignoring too many paradoxes and strange but convenient coincidences, too many vote analyses, and too much sworn testimony. Some “mainstream” American commentators are grudgingly and belatedly conceding that, yes, well, there is always “some fraud.” But they add that there is nothing unusual about this election. My comment: if, indeed, there is nothing unusual about the election, then election observers from some international body ought to have been called in long ago. I’m afraid that what I have discovered confirms my general view that America keeps sliding into lawlessness.
The possibility that the election was fraudulent is by itself frightening—ominous. Whether or not major fraud actually took place, this year’s election will among millions and millions of Americans who already distrust the established order further undermine faith in its legitimacy. Also, the “winner” that this system produced this year will be perceived as corrupt, frail, and mentally challenged. Biden had to be literally dragged over the finish line. Because the American media have actively concealed who Biden is, it will be a while before the American people as a whole find out. When they do, it is likely to add to the anger over what is already viewed as a stolen election.
That Biden is the very embodiment of the old establishment helps explain why he is being treated with tolerance by establishment Republicans. Biden is for them in some ways much less of a threat than Trump. As for world leaders, many of them intensely dislike President Trump, but, whatever they say publicly, they are likely to regard the election of the physically and mentally challenged and otherwise greatly compromised Biden as a sign that the United States is losing its vitality and creativity. And, they will all wonder, who are the people behind the scenes who are making the real decisions?
I feel the need to add one thing. In our deteriorating society, ruthless operatives will take full advantage of all the “nice” Americans who think of themselves as civilized defenders of the best of America—the “nice” people who will (nobly they think) not lower themselves to that other level of demagoguery and shenanigans. They will tell themselves that America passes through ups and downs in cycles and that in time the country always returns to balance and normalcy. I find that view as superficial as it is common. In our current historical situation, in which the decline of traditional standards continues apace, the ruthless will rather easily outmaneuver the nice, which is why the young of today had better prepare for rough times.
I will only add that I'm quite sure that world leaders know quite well who the real decision makers are behind the scenes.
There's a lot more to the article. I highly recommend it.
The ends justify the means.ReplyDelete
And any action to do that is acceptable is how the left / Democrats act / think in the US. They are not ready for an opposition to act that way.
That is why I find the flags I saw saying F*** Biden in Pasadena so significant.
>as a vehicle for implementing social justice
>and other “progressive” causes.
This reminds me of the French, Revolution, they ruthlessly killed their king and then turned into animals which led to a classic tyrant that almost detroyed France, only to in the end bring back the same old Bourbons that they dispatched years before.Delete
TAC could have been great. It's much more thoughtful about the use of American force than the deep state but just too anti-trump. Rod Dreher has very interesting things to say about corruption in global religious institutions such as the Catholic Church (because corruption is just everywhere, right?) but he's the kind of guy who believes everything he reads in media. The Covington kids were guilty before being proven innocent. Mueller's investigation needs to run its course. etc. etc.ReplyDelete
Yes. I liked many things that Dreher had to say, but the kneejerk lib of his past kept coming out. Not to mention the relentless self promotion.Delete
Mark, thanks very much for posting this breath of fresh air in a fetid swamp of insanity.ReplyDelete
Just a moment--are you calling my blog a fetid swamp of insanity? :-)Delete
"They will tell themselves that America passes through ups and downs in cycles, and that in time the country *always* returns to balance and normalcy."ReplyDelete
Because we've made it thru 155 years since the Civil War?
Do they mean, like the Roman Republic *always* returned to balance and normalcy?
I've run into this sort of mentality, with those who, given their educational/ personal "street" experience level, should know better.
"They will tell themselves that America passes through ups and downs in cycles...."
What prior cycle (*possibly* excepting the McCarthy Era) *remotely* compares to this RussiaGate etc. orgy of dishonesty?
If you want to read something totally goofy along similar lines try The Gridlock Election at Powerline.Delete
THanx for the tip, tho I'd call that post, not so much goofy, as (deliberately?) clueless.Delete
"gridlock has replaced the separation of powers, as a chief constraint on the impetuosity of central government...."
might actually ring rather true, but for the sly antics of the DS crowd, who likely care zip about gridlock (or its lack).
Reading this from this Hayward, you'd never know that there ever was a RussiaGate orgy, a Horowitz rept. response, or Barr's reference to Fireworks.
How many such eruptions (actual or thwarted) must there be, before Hayward etc. concede that, if the chief constraint on the impetuosity of Big Bro is gridlock, Const. governance is hanging by a thread?
Powerline: Those folks still believe this "system of government" functions. Full sexist mode: There's a fire in the kitchen and the woman is wondering what to serve next.Delete
If .... and this is a big if ... if we can truly salvage our nation, the non-Democrat party will have to cheat better.ReplyDelete
Washington didn’t win by playing by the rules.