Some commentators on the right argue that Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election are justified by the left’s denial of his legitimacy in 2016 and thereafter. Are they correct?
No, because there are two fundamental differences in the situations:
- The objections to Trump’s legitimacy after the 2016 election were primarily moral, not legal. Hillary Clinton sucked it up and conceded promptly. There were demonstrations, but no barrage of frivolous lawsuits, let alone efforts to get state legislatures to appoint their own electors or semi-serious discussions about martial law.
- The left’s complaints were based in fact, not fantasy. Trump did, in fact, lose the popular vote by a significant margin. He did, in fact, receive (and welcome) assistance from the Russians, and subsequently attempt to compel Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election on his behalf. Just because his campaign’s communications with Russians didn’t meet the standard for a criminal conspiracy doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, or that they didn’t matter. Trump’s objections to the “rigged” vote, on the other hand, are supported by nothing but the fevered imaginations of some of his most rabid supporters.