Why are “defenders of democracy” working so hard against democracy?

With a giddiness befitting their hard-won reputation as a left-wing propaganda network, CNN breathlessly delivered the breaking news:

I will just be as blunt as possible and say I legitimately don't understand how it fails to register with the folks making this concerted, organized, nationwide effort to remove Donald Trump from Republican primary ballots how bad it all makes them look.

How does it not even dawn on you that the non-radicalized majority of our population will laugh at you calling yourself a "defender of democracy" even as you take significant time away from your family, job, and civic life, just to dedicate it to limiting democratic options for people?

Obviously, the impulse to purge the public square of any diverse, contrarian, or non-progressive voice, should have always been an ever-present reminder that the left, and the modern Democratic Party it controls, has little interest in even observing, no less saving, democratic principles. Why should it be surprising that the same movement that fought so hard to discredit Fox as a legitimate news operation, or remove Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves, or conspire with the censorial ideologues running every major social media platform, would take the next logical step and try to remove troublesome, political rivals from ballots?

Remember, it is not just Trump receiving this treatment.

Step back and have the courage to take off the blue-tinted glasses and realize that not all anti-democratic "insurrections" happen at Capitol Hill.

Nevertheless, this dangerous precedent of political ballot manipulation continues apace from Democrats, prompting the US Supreme Court to announce they will intervene and rule on the effort. And it is obvious to anyone with a brain what they will say.

The argument that individual states can arbitrarily act as judge, jury, and executioner on the basis of the 14th amendment's "insurrection clause," is fundamentally in error. That insurrection clause isn't predicated on politically motivated feelings, or sentiments regarding what constitutes an insurrection. It is a legal definition that is adjudicated in court, not in David French's unintentional comedy bits written for The New York Times, where he imagines that 84-year-old grandmothers represent a threat to the preservation of American government that is at least on par, if not greater than, Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

Donald Trump has not been found guilty of inciting an insurrection. Therefore, any attempt to legally expel him from a primary ballot, something that was foreign to the authors of the insurrection clause, is a legal non-starter.

None of this means that Trump is fit for office or that the fact that we are having a conversation as to whether or not the actions of the former president endangered the stability of our system of government is a good thing.

What it does mean is that in their hatred for Donald Trump, Democrats continue to radically overplay their hand. It is one thing to believe, and even campaign against the man, on the basis that you believe he is a traitorous insurrectionist. If that is what you think, feel free to tell everyone why Trump is the bad choice.

But it remains the very definition of "anti-democratic" to work towards preventing Republicans from having the opportunity to decide for themselves.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Not the Bee or any of its affiliates.

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇

Keep up with our latest videos — Subscribe to our YouTube channel!

Ready to join the conversation? Subscribe today.

Access comments and our fully-featured social platform.

Sign up Now
App screenshot

You must signup or login to view or post comments on this article.