The inherent violence of election denialism

There is one question I feel is important to ask of anyone who feels a conspiracy has frustrated the will of the people and robbed former president Trump of his election victory: why is violence *not* an acceptable way of resolving the problem?

Hear me out.

I don’t mean this to encourage violence. Rather, I feel that the position is one that can easily *justify* violence. Particularly in America, a country often see by its citizens as founded in a romanticized, violent rebellion against a tyrannical government.

Right now, President Biden is working through various infrastructure bill compromises with Republicans. One take is that he is trying to show people like Joe Manchin that he has tried to solve the problem their way, and that a reconciliation bill is an unfortunate necessity.

Could not would-be insurrectionists see the failed court challenges, the failed January 6th insurrection, and the dubious audits that stand no chance of reversing the official certification of the election, in a similar light?

Moreover, why should they not? Imagine the reverse. Is any politician spreading election denialism really trying to tell people that sure, the government is illegitimate, and non-violent means have failed to fix the problem, but they should just sit there and take it?

I think a lot of these politicians are riding a tiger, and attempting to use the grievances they stoke as means of maintaining power. But the end result of this is to encourage violence against the (legitimate!) government of the the United States, whether they want to admit it or not.

---

As an aside, yes, it has been a long time since I posted on the blog. Yes, it has been quite an interesting fifteen months. I think we all wish it was a lot *less* interesting, don’t we?