A recent opinion piece by David Collins exemplifies this issue, relying on immature, exaggerated language, logical fallacies, and half-truths that distort the reality of the 2020 election challenges and Donald Trump's involvement. Not only does this tone fail to bridge the schisms within the community, but it also undermines the serious constitutional issues at play. It is essential to address these misconceptions while reaffirming that challenging election results is entirely within the constitutional framework and crucial for maintaining faith in our democratic system.
One of the most disheartening aspects of Collins' opinion piece is the sophomoric and immature tone he employs throughout. Instead of fostering constructive dialogue, he resorts to name-calling, labeling both candidates & community members as "Trumpers" in an attempt to sour otherwise inoffensive members of the Town and those who may be undecided as to which candidate they wish to support in Westport in the upcoming election. This kind of rhetoric does nothing to heal the growing divisions in our society and only serves to deepen the schisms within the community. It is also important to recognize that political opponents are not all our enemies per se but a tree is known by its fruit. While it is certainly true one could argue Donald Trump has an inflated view of himself and some in his corner have engaged in a form of idolatry most people I know can look past that.
The media particularly in the past 20 years has been quite instrumental in fomenting, fostering rhetoric that appears outright onerous, and sowing the seeds of discontent on an unsuspecting public.
This type of language, rooted in guilt by association and ad-hom attacks, undermines the legitimacy of political discourse and distracts from the substantive issues at hand. And what are the issues most important to voters in Westport, CT, and abroad? Perhaps the majority of residents in such a rural community have the luxury of not Reducing individuals to caricatures or labels prevents the meaningful conversations needed to address the actual concerns of voters. Instead of engaging in a productive dialogue about the integrity of our elections and the legal processes involved, Collins’ tone seems to intentionally alienate those who may already feel marginalized or disenfranchised. Such divisive rhetoric only makes it more difficult to bring about any meaningful reconciliation or understanding in our communities.
David Collins asserts that Donald Trump is "an avowed democracy killer" because he questioned the results of the 2020 election. Such an accusation is not only inflammatory and absent any true merit but also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the constitutional processes available to every citizen. Challenging election results is not an attack on democracy; rather, it is an established constitutional process designed to ensure the integrity of our electoral system. The U.S. Constitution and federal laws allow candidates to question the legitimacy of elections through legal avenues, which Trump did by filing lawsuits in multiple states. The ability to contest election outcomes is an essential safeguard that ensures transparency and accountability when irregularities are suspected.
The problem is - and continues to be how one frames the spoken words of others in such a way as to create a predisposition in the minds of the listener as to what one is saying and what they mean. This is a form of manipulation. Some argue Trump is manipulating his constituents while others argue that it is Trump's opponents that are the ones engaged in a form of what might be described as mind and language training. The childish rhetoric in the form of name-calling or casting doubt that Mr. Collins and many of his peers are practicing is a testament to this. Children will often engage in this practice on playgrounds amongst their friends to generate a consensus. For Example: in game-play, you might hear something like: “Don’t pick Daniel. He pees his pants and picks his nose.” Or “Don’t pick Lisa she’s too ugly .. etc.” You get the idea. It’s an extremely sad commentary that American Politics has descended to this level and if you think as Mr. Collins does you might say the oft-repeated mantra as if it's an incantation: “It’s all Trump's fault”. And they will stare you blandly in the face continue saying it yet provide not a singe shred of proof.
Previous candidates, including Al Gore in 2000, also pursued similar challenges, and it was accepted as a valid exercise of legal recourse. Instead of employing dismissive rhetoric, Collins and others should recognize that these challenges are part of the broader democratic process, not an attempt to subvert it. He seems to have conveniently forgotten this fact.
Evidence Dismissed Without Consideration
One of the most troubling aspects of the 2020 election dispute was the wholesale dismissal of evidence and testimony without serious consideration. Furthermore, over 50,000 affidavits were signed under penalty of perjury, alleging irregularities and misconduct during the election. Would Mr. Collins intent be to marginalize the silent majority - because either his political bias or his penchant for hating for hate’s sake preclude him from granting others their constitutional rights or their day in court? These affidavits, a critical form of evidence, were provided by citizens across multiple states, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. However, not withstanding many instances, these affidavits were dismissed without proper or no examination at all, raising serious concerns about due process and equal application of the law.
Under the 14th Amendment, due process and equal protection are guaranteed to all citizens. Yet, when courts dismissed these affidavits and other evidence without proper scrutiny citing almost unilaterally citing that the evidence presented didn’t rise to the level of admissibility, it resulted in the erosion of public trust in our judicial system. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 56 regarding summary judgment, emphasize that courts must consider all evidence and cannot summarily dismiss cases without thoroughly reviewing substantive claims. By ignoring these affidavits, many courts may have violated the fundamental principle of due process. Will there ever be any reprimands? Probably not. And why you might ask ? Because the media has succeeded in either perverting legal precedent or not mentioning it at all, dismissing evidence without a fair hearing, diminishes faith in the institutions and prevents an honest resolution of election disputes or any legal disputes for that matter.
State Law Changes and Culpability:
The 2020 election was further complicated by several states changing their election laws in the months leading up to the election—often without proper legislative oversight. These changes, made under the pretext of addressing COVID-19 concerns, undermined the predictability and accountability of the electoral process. For example, in Pennsylvania, the state extended mail-in ballot deadlines through executive action rather than legislative approval, which many legal experts argued violated the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, which grants state legislatures the authority to determine the manner of elections.
In Michigan, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson issued guidance that bypassed the legislative process, resulting in more lenient verification standards for mail-in ballots. Similarly, in Wisconsin, unauthorized drop boxes were used, later ruled unlawful by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. These unilateral changes by state officials created significant legal ambiguity and confusion, making it challenging to contest the results within the established legal framework. Instead of vilifying those who sought to challenge these issues, we should focus on restoring a uniform electoral process that adheres to constitutional mandates.
Due Process and Legal Standards:
The refusal to consider evidence presented in these election challenges raises significant concerns about the unequal application of legal standards. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." By rejecting these complaints without giving the evidence proper consideration, many courts may have failed to apply this fundamental legal principle subjecting themselves to legal retribution.
Moreover, the principle of stare decisis, which requires courts to follow established precedent, was seemingly ignored. Historically, testimonial evidence and affidavits under penalty of perjury have been accepted as valid forms of evidence. Courts that dismissed these claims without review deviated from this standard, raising serious concerns about equal protection and due process. These actions undermine the very foundation of a fair legal system, where every citizen is entitled to in a court of law.
Conclusion: The Need for Fair Debate, Due Process, and Respectful Discourse
David Collins' opinion piece highlights the dangers of allowing emotionally charged, immature rhetoric to replace factual and constitutional discourse. While he expresses concern for the future of “democracy”, his reliance on exaggerated language, logical fallacies, and name-calling fails to contribute to a reasoned debate. It is vital to understand that challenging election results is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and is critical to maintaining honesty in our democratic system.
Dismissal of evidence, changes in state laws, refusal to grant due process to those contesting the election results are serious issues that deserve thoughtful consideration—not ridicule or fearmongering. To heal the divisions in our communities and restore faith in our institutions, we must engage in respectful, informed, and mature conversations that prioritize fairness and meticulous attention to components in our laws and put aside the petty partisan attacks.
Let us move forward with a commitment to upholding constitutional rights, ensuring due process, and fostering an environment of civil discourse where every citizen’s voice and concerns are heard and respected. By doing so, we can restore trust in our electoral system and strengthen the very democracy we all seek to preserve.
Comments