Every now and then, an editorial or column appears in this distinguished newspaper that raises my ire. Of course, my opponents will sneer "welcome to the club, old boy!" But since the new year, I would argue that my space has become slightly more sober, if still not a perfect model of judiciousness. And while I've acted in good faith, writers both far and near from the left have continued to pearl clutch and fearmonger in ever more hysterical, pathetic or illogical ways.
The case in point is "Will Trump go away quietly?," a guest column that appeared here Aug. 29. Though the question is a badly phrased bit of clickbait as well as easily answered, the real story is that Shira Lurie has a rather poor grasp of history for such an educated woman.
"Trump has already questioned his loss of... the popular vote with baseless accusations of voter fraud." Actually, these accusations were anything but baseless, given the long history of calumny in places like Chicago, where dead people often vote and the cold hard fact that in California, state laws are purposely written to obfuscate who is or is not a citizen. Trump cited these realities that may have affected the final tally by as much as a million ballots for president.
Lurie's comparisons between 1800 and a possible stalemate in 2020 are unhelpful. The deadlock in the electoral college was between Thomas Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr, not their opponent John Adams. Until 1800, presidential contestants did not have running mates, second place becoming president of the Senate. Because the electors cast the same amount of votes for Burr and Jefferson, Congress took 36 ballots to finally pick the president.
Governors readying arms to ensure a decision before March 4th has no bearing on the present. It was a reaction to a defective technicality remedied in 1804 by the 12th Amendment.
A proper example would have been the election of 1824, in which Andrew Jackson was defeated by John Quincy Adams through a contingent election, despite Jackson having carried a plurality of the popular and electoral vote. Jackson was furious and he took out his vengeance upon the incumbent and the establishment next cycle by creating today's Democratic Party.
I must applaud Lurie's claim that Trump has fostered the conditions of 1860 for its audacity but it shows a serious lack of appreciation for American history, despite her doctorate.
The slavery question was unanswered from America's founding and a series of weak, single-term presidents since Jackson created a crisis. In 1860, the newly formed Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, took power and the Civil War ensued. More importantly for our purposes is the fact that Lincoln lost the popular vote and, like the secessionists of 1860, it is Trump's opponents in liberal states and cities ignoring federal law, particularly on immigration.
The difficulties Trump faces as president are a result of mismanagement by both parties, dividing the nation and destabilizing the world. The Donald courts controversy but he has shown his critics will never concede him a victory of any kind, beginning with his election win in 2016.
Supposedly "nuanced" op-eds inked by liberal intellectuals like Shira Lurie bring a false sense of historical inevitability to those who wish for Trump's defeat. If anything, the examples she cited - which I had to correct, better explain and expand - actually support the president's accusations of manipulation and his claims of being a revolutionary force in American politics.
Ultimately, whispering or shouting "orange man bad" is terrible journalism, if not outright fake news. Without seriously addressing the pathologies affecting many of the president's biggest supporters, such as wage stagnation, declining life-expectancy and constant cultural attacks, the best thing anti-Trumpers can do is to go away quietly and await his landslide victory in 2020.
