As a well-experienced observer of the media, I have come to a conclusion: Washington politics is peopled almost entirely by a bunch of spineless, whiny drama queens. They are bound and determined to play out their own version of Much Ado About Nothing,
and their good buddies in the media insist that this
is the "news" that we should all be concerned about.
Case in point: the great John Lewis controversy.
Over the weekend, Congressman Lewis announced to the world that he plans to boycott Donald Trump's inauguration, saying on Meet the Press
that "I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president."
I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm no fan of Donald Trump. I said early on that I wouldn't vote for him, and I didn't. I have no regrets in that regard. While I do, at times, find his responses to his Democrat and media critics to be emotionally gratifying (it's about time that someone in the Republican Party was willing to stand up to the left-wing media apparatus), I also find them to be juvenile, and unbecoming of the next President of the United States. In the area of presidential dignity, I was hoping that we would raise the bar, not lower it.
But the Democrats have taken this to an entirely new level. Prior to the election, the left-wing media went to great lengths to weigh their national polls, reinforcing the Democrats' belief that Hillary's ascension to the presidency was inevitable. This may have been a calculated strategy - perhaps they wanted make Hillary's victory to seem so inevitable that Republicans would just stay home on election day. But regardless of the reasons behind it, the only real outcome of this contrived sense of inevitability has been a political party in denial, unable to accept that their Chosen One lost the election.
The narrative that Russia "hacked the election" has fed and compounded this denial among members of the Democrat Party, even though they have offered no solid evidence that Russian involvement changed any votes. They haven't even really proved that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from the Russians.
But reactions by the Obama administration, and by Democrats at large, show that their outrage is politically motivated, more than anything. When millions of Americans' personal information was hacked from the Office of Personnel Management, the response from the Obama administration was notably tepid when compared to their outrage over losing an election. But the DNC emails showed the public the kind of disdain that Democrat leadership holds even for its own constituents. The corruption inherent in the Democrats' primary process, and the resulting disenfranchisement of millions of Democrat voters, was made public for all to see.
And that has the Democrats enraged.
All of this is borne out of denial. Their candidate is one of the most corrupt politicians on the national stage. Her career has been defined by her ability to dodge scandal after scandal, from her dogged repetition of "I do not recall" in the Whitewater hearings, to blaming the Benghazi tragedy on a YouTube video.
They really did expect that a nominee under investigation by the FBI for criminal negligence, for using an un-secure, private email server while Secretary of State, would just skate right into the White House. When James Comey announced that the FBI would not recommend her indictment, they took that as her complete vindication, though it was blindingly obvious that some kind of deal had been worked out between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
But because she's a Democrat, and because she's a woman, America should find no fault in her, no matter how corrupt she's been throughout her political career. And because Her Grand Inevitableness lost, and lost to a candidate as reprehensible as Donald J. Trump, the Left has pulled out all the stops to undermine our electoral process. They trumped up charges that Russia "hacked" the election. They attempted to sway electors into violating election laws to change their votes. They tried to disrupt the process to certify the Electoral College's vote. And they failed, every time. Kinda makes you long for the days when every Democrat in America insisted that refusing to accept the results of an election posed a major threat to American democracy, doesn't it?
It's interesting to note that the "scandal" surrounding John Lewis is centered entirely around the fact that Donald Trump's response to Lewis was typical Trump: on Twitter, Trump didn't bow or scrape. He was forward and forceful, saying that "Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results."
The reaction from Democrats was immediate and completely predictable: HOW DARE
Donald Trump criticize a "civil rights icon" like John Lewis?!?!?!?!?!
Of course, they completely ignore the fact that Lewis's civil rights 'legacy' is 50 years old. Today, he is a career politician and a political hack
, capitalizing on his past in the civil rights movement to sustain his own political power. This is rather typical of how Democrats operate: they will accept a former Klansman like Robert Byrd, completely writing off his past, as long as he pledges allegiance to the Democrat Party and the socialism for which they stand, and will likewise completely ignore the ineffectual career of a man like Congressman Lewis, calling upon ancient history (politically speaking) to turn him into a saint if anyone should have the temerity to actually stand up to him. The Race Card is, after all, a long-held staple of the Democrats' political playbook.
And John Lewis isn't the only Democrat going apoplectic over Donald Trump's upcoming inauguration. Various performers have proclaimed that they will not perform at the inauguration (though, interestingly, the media articles that proclaim this typically leave out any mention of whether they were asked to perform). Others have been bullied into not performing by the ever-tolerant Left. Various politicians have indignantly proclaimed that they will not attend. And while these stories may make easy headlines for the news media, they make the news cycle rather boring.
This is the same thing they did the last time the Executive Branch changed from Democrat to Republican - they forced recount after recount, even to the point of violating Florida election laws in their mad denials, and for years thereafter we were treated to rabid hippies insisting that George W. Bush had "stolen" the election. John Lewis skipped his inauguration, too (though he seems to have forgotten that fact, as he's insisted that Trump's will be the first inauguration he won't have attended). This is nothing new: to Democrats, Republican victories will always be illegitimate, because they just can't handle rejection.
So when it comes to the Left vs. Right angst that has dominated the drama over Donald Trump's impending inauguration, I propose this solution:
If you want to attend Donald Trump's inauguration, then attend. If you don't want to attend Donald Trump's inauguration, then don't.
Your decision to attend (or not) is not worthy of media headlines (unless it is driven by death threats, as it has been for some performers who have pulled out of the events). Instead of behaving like a whiny, petulant child, as Congressman Lewis has, choose something novel, such as behaving like an adult.