At what point does resistance become unpatriotic? Possibly, when elected leaders like Democrat John Lewis attempt to undermine the law of the land.
The dust-up between Lewis and Donald Trump began with the respected civil rights leader telling NBC’s Chuck Todd: "I don't see this President-elect as a legitimate president...I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton."
So, even though Donald Trump won more than the requisite number of Electoral College votes to defeat Hillary Clinton, Lewis, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, denies that Mr. Trump, as of Friday afternoon, will be our duly elected president.
In 2010 after the battle over ObamaCare, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell vowed to work against the president's reelection. That promise, for which he was slammed by the Left, was perhaps unpolitic, but he stopped short of suggesting that Obama was not the rightful occupant of the Oval Office. McConnell, along with other Republicans, believed that Obama’s policies would not benefit the country; it was his job to try to turn him out of office.
Trump, of course, did challenge Obama’s legitimacy, questioning the president’s birthplace. But he was a private citizen. His behavior may have been deplorable, but it was not a contradiction of his oath of office.
The accusation made by Lewis challenges the peaceful transition of power, an essential pillar of our democracy. As Martin Luther King III said after meeting with Trump, in the heat of emotion, “A lot of things get said on both sides.” That may be true, but Lewis crossed a line and needs to tell the nation that he was wrong.
The IMF recently boosted its forecast of U.S. economic growth by half a percent, citing Trump’s policies. How can challenging the president-elect’s legitimacy do anything but undermine the promise of faster job creation and higher incomes for all Americans?
Lewis’ comment not only verges on unpatriotic, it is also wrong. The Russians did not destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton did.
Moscow did not invent the disgraceful collusion between Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the supposedly neutral DNC to undermine rival Bernie Sanders.
Putin did not write the emails revealing the Clinton camp’s derisive attitude towards people of faith, or the degree to which Hillary cynically shifted positions to better accommodate polls. They didn’t author the speech in which she said “you need both a public and a private position” on policy or the one in which she said she dreamt of “a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”
No, Russia did not create these embarrassments for Clinton. Putin et al did help make them public, but they only confirmed what most Americans already thought of Hillary Clinton. More important, Moscow did not manipulate Hillary Clinton into using the several private email servers that had but one purpose: to avoid public scrutiny.
To that end she went to extraordinary lengths to destroy and withhold documents that by law belong to the American people – documents that reveal the abhorrent pay-to-play culture nurtured by the Clintons. She also mishandled classified information, which has landed lesser mortals in prison.
And no, James Comey is not to blame either. Hillary fans have conveniently forgotten that the FBI Director gave Clinton a pass when he recommended against indicting the Democrat candidate in July. Though Comey noted that the former first lady had been “extremely careless” in her handling of ‘very sensitive, highly classified information”, and though here was “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey argued that no “reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Republicans were incensed by Comey’s generous treatment of Clinton.
When new evidence surfaced, Comey reopened the investigation, and made that decision public.
A Politico/Morning Consult poll taken after Comey’s October announcement indicated that his reopened investigation had not altered the race one bit.
What did alter the race was an appetite for change and eagerness for a pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda. In promising four more years of Obama, Hillary ignored those sentiments. She ran a terrible campaign, taking for granted core constituents like union workers in the Midwest and mistaking President Obama’s personal popularity for enthusiasm for his policies.
In July 2015, before the WikiLeaks dumps began, polling revealed that Mrs. Clinton was in trouble. A Washington Post columnist wrote, “It’s hard to overstate just how bad Clinton's numbers are…. they are in some ways about as bad as Trump's.” Indeed, 54% of the country had an unfavorable view of Clinton, and 44% had a very unfavorable view – an all-time high.
Most astonishing is that despite such polling Democrats never even considered that she might lose. So inevitable was her victory and so supportive and confident was the liberal media, that Trump’s win was as shocking as it was painful.
As a result we have seen mobs riot in protest and a smear campaign second to none waged against the President-elect. Petulant liberals (and more than 50 members of Congress) have announced with much fanfare their boycott of the inauguration.
The media is furious that they may not have much sway in the new White House, even as they continue to denigrate Trump’s every move.
Fashion designers have churlishly declared they won’t be dressing Melania.
Spoiled brats, all, who grossly overestimate their own importance. Trump fans don’t care. They are ready to move on.
Democrats, including John Lewis, can be forgiven for being unhappy that their candidate lost. But they cannot be forgiven for punishing the country for the astonishing drubbing handed out not only to Clinton but also to Democrats across the board.
Instead of looking for scapegoats, Democrats including Obama, Clinton and Lewis would profit more from trying to understand where they went wrong and how they lost the confidence of the nation. That would be to the good of the country – and a more patriotic approach.