- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Who Threatens Democracy?

The United States is currently facing a truly dangerous and unsettling political movement that poses real challenges to traditional concepts of democracy. That phenomenon is, of course, anti-Trumpism. Speaking personally, nothing could induce me to vote for Mr. Trump, but the violent opposition to him is becoming alarming.

Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say [1],” reads a New York Times headline. Specifically, these experts warn of his “contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law.” And if they are experts, and if the Times has bothered to telephone them, then their views are of course impeccably objective. There are multiple issues here, not least that another Clinton presidency would assuredly involve precisely the same hazards, and presumably to the point of impeachable crimes, yet the Times is not seeking expert opinions on those matters.

But right now, let us consider the “rule of law” in the present election. In San Jose, anti-Trump protesters just physically attacked and chased supporters leaving a meeting, and events like that are becoming commonplace. They are assuredly going to escalate over the next few months. That prospect determines attitudes on both sides. Every left-wing activist group knows it is duty-bound to express its opposition to Trump, and supporters know that they are likely to be attacked if they attend meetings.

We can guarantee that certain things are going to happen within the next two months. One is that at least a handful of Trump supporters are not going to turn the other cheek. They know they cannot rely on police protection, and so some will turn up to meetings prepared to defend themselves, possibly with firearms. At that point, someone is going to be wounded or killed. At that point, expect a media outpouring about the inherent violence of Trump, his supporters, and the political Right. These animals are vicious! When attacked, they defend themselves.

The other prediction we can make with fair certainty is that in mid-July, we are going to be facing a major political crisis. The Republican convention will be held in Cleveland July 18-21, and it will assuredly be held in a state of siege. The exact outcome of that event very much depends on police behavior, preparation, and organization. If protesters can be kept sufficiently far removed, then perhaps some semblance of order can be preserved. If not, it is possible that the convention itself might be forced to suspend its activities. Either way, it is highly likely that individual convention delegates and participants are going to be attacked and, conceivably, harmed.

Political protests on some scale are not new, and political conventions are a natural target. But in modern U.S. history, has there ever been a national election where the candidates of one party were simply unable to show their faces without being met by violence? Where mob action simply makes it impossible for one campaign to function? We are not here talking about the candidate of some neo-Nazi sect or Klan group, but the Republican Party itself.

Ultimately, this is all a matter of policing and the workings of the criminal-justice system. In recent years, American police forces have become very conscious of the need to avoid overreaction at protests and public gatherings, for fear of generating embarrassing film that shows up on YouTube. In a version of the notorious “Ferguson Effect,” they have become much gentler in their approaches than they were in earlier years. Witness, for instance, the decision to allow groups like Black Lives Matter to block roads without facing even the danger of arrest. The reasons for caution are understandable, but something has to change. If the police cannot maintain public order sufficiently to allow the functioning of something as critical as a national election, have we not ventured into a full-scale national crisis?

If national elections cannot be held in safety, has democracy not ceased to function?

Philip Jenkins is the author of The Many Faces of Christ: The Thousand Year Story of the Survival and Influence of the Lost Gospels [2]. He is distinguished professor of history at Baylor University and serves as co-director for the Program on Historical Studies of Religion in the Institute for Studies of Religion.

43 Comments (Open | Close)

43 Comments To "Who Threatens Democracy?"

#1 Comment By Sally Snyder On June 9, 2016 @ 7:43 am

Here is an article that explains why it really doesn’t matter whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton wins the election in November:

[3]

The two-party system and the illusion of democracy is irrelevant thanks to America’s unseen government.

#2 Comment By Fred Bowman On June 9, 2016 @ 9:28 am

Would not be surprised to see an assignation attempt on either Trump or Clinton before the election. Things are getting real ugly this election season.

#3 Comment By Johann On June 9, 2016 @ 9:41 am

The most egregious danger to the rule of law is when government doesn’t follow the law, like for example when government does not deport illegal immigrants. It makes a mockery of the law and encourages more law breaking. People ignore the law.

#4 Comment By Kurt Gayle On June 9, 2016 @ 10:19 am

The violence directed against the Trump campaign stem from Trump’s call to build The Wall across the US-Mexican border.

The vast majority of illegal drugs entering the US cross the Mexican border.

“The most significant drug trafficking organizations operating in the United States today are the dangerous and highly sophisticated Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) that continue to be the principal suppliers of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. These organizations are responsible for the extreme violence seen in Mexico, as these groups battle for turf and attack public officials and innocent civilians.

“Domestically, affiliated and violent gangs are increasingly a threat to the safety and security of our communities. They profit primarily by putting drugs on the street and have become crucial to the Mexican cartels.”

 Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration, US Department of Justice, 2015

[4]

#5 Comment By Rossbach On June 9, 2016 @ 11:09 am

This will be an interesting situation for GOP convention delegates. If the police refuse to act and allow the protestors (rioters, actually) to assault the delegates, then the delegates have little choice but to either defend themselves or to abandon the convention to the violent mob. If the delegates try to protect themselves, the controlled media will brand them as fascists; if they retreat, the Left will claim a righteous victory.

I am sure that the Left’s violent suppression of the GOP convention would please Hillary, too, but I am not so sure that it would work to her advantage on Election Day. The American public will not support a candidate who tries to bully her way into the White House.

#6 Comment By GSS On June 9, 2016 @ 11:35 am

This is 4th Generation Warfare … read about it here: [5]

#7 Comment By Julia On June 9, 2016 @ 11:41 am

What is even more alarming are the number of people justifying the violence.

First off, just on a logic level this is worrisome. If it is justified to attack and harm people because of their beliefs, then don’t those condoning this think that perhaps this might happen to them? So on that level alone it is worrisome that people cannot think two steps ahead of their own position.

Secondly, this is straight up terrorism. The intent of the violence is to make people afraid to attend these political events, especially women, older people, people with children. How many people are now thinking of their safety when deciding whether to participate in a political event. That is the very definition of terrorism.

#8 Comment By Andrew E. On June 9, 2016 @ 11:43 am

Johann- there’s never been any sort of strong effort by our government to deport illegals, and I can’t imagine why, in general, people would look at them and then decide it’s fine to commit more crimes. Was there a big spike in crime among the general population when Reagan declared Amnesty for all illegals who entered the country before 1982? Hasn’t crime statistics across the board been decreasing for decades?

This is not to say we don’t have a significant problem with our immigration politicies. I just don’t see the correlation.

#9 Comment By Kurt Gayle On June 9, 2016 @ 12:51 pm

Andrew E. writes:

“Johann- there’s never been any sort of strong effort by our government to deport illegals…”

Actually, Andrew, there has been such a strong effort. In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower launched Operation Wetback to deport illegal immigrants back to Mexico. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service claimed that as many as 1.3 million illegals were deported, although that number may have included an unknown number who left voluntarily (“self-deported”).

#10 Comment By Kurt Gayle On June 9, 2016 @ 1:14 pm

@ GSS who says: “This is 4th Generation Warfare”:

Your comparing the anti-Trump violence with 4th generation warfare is spot-on! The major Mexican drug cartels – who would suffer grievously if Trump built a wall the length the border — can project a “muscular” presence into any US city where they see a target to attack or intimidate. The cartels have access to virtually unlimited financial resources — and they can “launder” their financing of street violence so that no one actually participating in the street violence is directly aware of who is organizing and financing the violence. Yep! That level of gang violence fits William Lind’s 4th Generation Warfare to a tee.

#11 Comment By KD On June 9, 2016 @ 3:28 pm

Ah, the voice of conservatism. . .

Nothing would compel me to lift a finger in opposition to oppose these lawless Leftists using violence and intimidation to steal a national election (say by voting for Trump, going to a Trump rally, or encouraging people to go to Trump rallies), at the same time, I want everyone to know that I vociferously oppose these tactics.

What was that Yeats line again?

#12 Comment By Dan Welch On June 9, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

At the risk of sounding like a child saying “they started it”, Trump and his supporters, well, started it. The protests were generally peaceful until the protesters began being manhandled, pepper-sprayed, and mocked from the podium by the Orange One himself with taunts like “I’d like to punch him in the mouth.” The violence from the protesters only escalated when it became clear that the Trumpettes were more than happy to use their own strong-arm methods to shut the protesters down.

I don’t agree with or condone the undirected violence — a Trump supporter minding his own business should not be physically harassed. But the ones who are spoiling for a fight? The guy who is grinning why spraying mace? The guy who sucker-punched a protester already being escorted out? They get no sympathy from me.

#13 Comment By R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) On June 9, 2016 @ 4:08 pm

We are in for a long hot summer. I fear riots at political events, crimes commited by activists. But the greatest danger to our nation may be the crimes committed by our government. If Hillary is treated, in any way differently, by the FBI work considering whether she committed felonies, it will not be accepted by the American people. If the Civil Rights Division makes good its stated policy that no prosecution will occur if the victim is white, (a blatant illegal policy), it will not be accepted by the American people.

Our society will be tested in this election.

#14 Comment By Kurt Gayle On June 9, 2016 @ 4:17 pm

My apologies for too many comments — but I would like to make one more very important point:

@ Philip Jenkins, who writes that “[Trump supporters] know they cannot rely on police protection.”

While it is true that the police in San Jose stood back and didn’t intervene when Trump supporters were attacked – at most other Trump rallies the police and security people have acted in a very professional manner and their dedication to duty has been exemplary. So those of us who are Trump supporters generally have a lot of confidence in the police to continue to do their best to protect us from attacks by anti-Trump protesters.

You also predict: “We can guarantee that certain things are going to happen within the next two months. One is that at least a handful of Trump supporters are not going to turn the other cheek…[and] will turn up to meetings prepared to defend themselves, possibly with firearms.”

It is my OVERWHELMING impression that Trump marshals and Trump supporters understand this danger COMPLETELY and will continue to refuse to be provoked into ANY retaliatory acts of violence. They will turn away from such acts of violence not only because such acts of violence are illegal and wrong, but because such acts of violence would damage the Donald Trump campaign and would damage our chances for November 8th.

Trump marshals and supporters that I have heard have said over and over again: Don’t be provoked. Don’t retaliate. Don’t do anything that could damage our goal — and our goal is to have a clear vote on the issues on Nov. 8th.

#15 Comment By Peter Alfano On June 9, 2016 @ 4:38 pm

I remember the streets of Chicago in 1968 being more than a little violent as Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey and somehow Democracy surived. The real threat is in the poll numbers no one cares about anymore: How Sanders easily defeats Trump. That’s a Socialist beating a Capitalist with the support of a new generation of young Americans. As more Americans spiral downward instead of moving up in the world a real revolution is coming unless something changes.

#16 Comment By Bill On June 9, 2016 @ 4:49 pm

“We are not here talking about the candidate of some neo-Nazi sect or Klan group, but the Republican Party itself.”

Yet Mr. Jenkins must emphatically alert us to the fact that he refuses to vote for Trump, and many of his fellow NeverTrumpers (though not, to my knowledge, Mr. Jenkins himself), including writers for many conservative-identifying websites, have in fact effectively compared Trump to, or attempted to link him to, Nazis or the Klan. (This week Paul Ryan referred to Trump’s statements as “textbook racism,” even as he was endorsing him!)

If you read the websites of the left, you’ll see that such responses of GOP/”conservative” elites to Trump are used on a daily basis to confirm their claims that Trump is in fact a dangerous extremist who must be stopped by any means, including violence, and should NOT be treated as a legitimate major-party nominee.

Mr. Jenkins, you are helping cause the very problem over which you are wringing your hands. Vote for whomever you wish, but you must realize that if you treat Trump as beyond the pale, you signal that violence against him is acceptable.

#17 Comment By Sending in the Clowns On June 9, 2016 @ 4:50 pm

I live in San Jose (since 78) and this issue has already been essentially forgotten in the mainstraem press. Imagine if it were 8 years ago, and the poor lady getting pelted with eggs by a gang of scum had been young and black with an “Obama 08” jersey… We would be seeing that video on every news program, everyday. What?? Did some lady get pelted by eggs… didn’t see it…

#18 Comment By Mercer On June 9, 2016 @ 5:21 pm

” Trump and his supporters, well, started it. The protests were generally peaceful until the protesters began being manhandled, ”

The protesters were manhandled only after loudly disrupting Trump events. No one has the right to disrupt private events.

#19 Comment By kalendjay On June 9, 2016 @ 5:23 pm

It’s all about party discipline, which Republicans were once famous for back in the eighties. Thanks to a caring media, Hillary is about convention discipline and organization today, right down to trumpeting her historic “win” in delegates before she actually got it, and hossanahs to feminist history that she is the first woman of any party to be a presidential nominee (attending charges that Bernie is now the “sexist”).

But if only a few GOP pundits keep their heads while all others have lost theirs, it will be repeated that Hillary and her funders are not only fanning flames, but actively supporting the new terrorists. There is no one in his right mind who will express “common ground” with these thugs — not even the kind of solicitude shown by GHW Bush after the LA riots. Except maybe for Joe Scarborough, and certain others who will be cornered as outright traitors — probably by Trump himself.

As for confrontation, I would suggest confining the Jacobins to their gated free speech spaces, and having a few kindly citizens wave “Impeach Hillary” signs in front of them. We’ll see then what good all the Sanders hubbub has done, or not.

#20 Comment By Nelson On June 9, 2016 @ 5:35 pm

The rioters are ordinary riff-raff. Trump is riff-raff running for president. Obviously he’s the bigger threat to Democracy.

#21 Comment By Johann On June 9, 2016 @ 6:00 pm

Johann- there’s never been any sort of strong effort by our government to deport illegals, and I can’t imagine why, in general, people would look at them and then decide it’s fine to commit more crimes. Was there a big spike in crime among the general population when Reagan declared Amnesty for all illegals who entered the country before 1982? Hasn’t crime statistics across the board been decreasing for decades?

Andrew, the numbers of illegal immigrants gas increased. That is an increase in crime. They are all criminals. What part of illegal don’t you understand? Or do you consider the immigration law meaningless and don’t consider the illegals criminal? If so, that’s exactly what I was talking about.

#22 Comment By No Lawyers On June 9, 2016 @ 6:14 pm

We have a president who appears to have contempt for the law – who dictates with executive orders and does fail to even appear to attack the illegal invaders problem and then a buffoon who appeals to those who are already stirred up with angry rhetoric. And then you have a bunch of people who are repeatedly told how they are getting robbed by the rich and deserve more of everything. This is not a cage of happy rabbits.

#23 Comment By Douglas Proudfoot On June 9, 2016 @ 7:25 pm

The media will cover every mistake Trump makes and debunk every lie he tells. The media will cover up every mistake Clinton makes and support every lie she tells as gospel truth. Since they are both equally despicable people, I think the media attitude makes Trump the better choice. At least we will know everything he’s doing wrong.

#24 Comment By Demelza On June 9, 2016 @ 8:42 pm

[6]

#25 Comment By Ted Shepherd On June 9, 2016 @ 8:58 pm

On a lighter note, and we certainly could use some relief: a commenter here wrote “Would not be surprised to see an assignation attempt on either Trump or Clinton before the election.” Now clearly he meant to write “assassination”. Assignations — secret meetings for sex — are a specialty of the man Hillary protects. Just wait until he is back in the White House.

#26 Comment By MountainSon On June 9, 2016 @ 10:50 pm

“Speaking personally, nothing could induce me to vote for Mr. Trump, but the violent opposition to him is becoming alarming.”

I’m sick of the condescension towards Trump, which conveys to his supporters because of their willingness to stand with him.

Who’s your boy? Marco? Jeb? Any of the interchangeable neo-cons trotted out by the Republican Establishment? You just don’t get that the rank & file are absolutely sick of the insiders and their rampant corruption. Goldman Sachs, anyone?

Oh, this political process is sooo messy. Why can’t the Great Unwashed see the truth?? It just…didn’t…go…the…way…it…was…scripted! So scary! Trump is such a brute!

Maybe you will consider a six-month sabbatical if you cannot step up with the record number of Republican primary voters and support the nominee. As a famous warmonger once said: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

As for law and order on the campaign trail, get used to police passivity. They will stand by until the dust clears, stick a wet finger in the wind and back the strong horse. Kinda like the Justice Department looking into Hillary’s espionage problem. I mean, really, there are pensions involved here, which supercedes everything.

#27 Comment By Ed On June 9, 2016 @ 11:02 pm

Nelson, thats no reason to attack supporters of a candidate. What has happened to the Golden Rule the past 16 years?

#28 Comment By Gregory On June 9, 2016 @ 11:53 pm

Violence committed by anti-Trump protestors =/= Violence urged (www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/) and sanctioned by a leading contender to the presidency who casually says he’d violate international law (www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/who-threatens-democracy/).

The anti-Trump faction’s violent actions are unjustified. But that group isn’t an election away from having power over the largest military in the world.

#29 Comment By Gregory On June 9, 2016 @ 11:54 pm

Ooops. The second link should be [7]

#30 Comment By raffishtenant On June 10, 2016 @ 6:07 am

Kurt Gayle refers to “the major Mexican drug cartels — who would suffer grievously if Trump built a wall the length the border.”

I see little reason to believe that this is the case. A wall is not a significant impediment to organizations with the cartels’ resources. They will use tunnels, drones, manned flights, boats, catapults, bribery — the same solutions they’re already using, merely ramped up. The laws of supply and demand, and the lucrative nature of the black market under Prohibition II, ensure that they will always find ways. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the most powerful cartels are downright delighted by the prospect of a Trump presidency, as a means of making life a bit more difficult for the competition.

#31 Comment By John Willson On June 10, 2016 @ 6:40 am

Mr. Jenkins must establish his bona fides: “nothing could induce me to vote for Mr. Trump,” which is the real and only point of the essay. Political violence has been a part of American history since the Revolution, when “patriots” systematically dismantled the property, persons, and reputations of “loyalists.” What we see now is no more, or less dangerous that it has ever been. It is really dangerous, however, that we are in an election where “nothing” could cause Mr. Jenkins to vote for the man many of us good people will certainly vote for. I assume that “nothing” also includes systematic violent attacks on our persons and property.

#32 Comment By Will Harrington On June 10, 2016 @ 11:21 am

I was thinking this morning about the whole relationship between Trump and Mexicans and the way the media and The Donald’s opponents have told this story. They keep shouting racists, but in doing so they keep announcing loudly and repeatedly to anyone with a brain that they are idiots. Mexican is not a race. I have had to tell this repeatedly to all the high school classes I have taught (the subject does come up), Mexico is a multi-ethnic and multi-racial country. Mexican is no more a race than American is.

#33 Comment By anne m erskine On June 10, 2016 @ 1:45 pm

Those who will not vote for Trump even if they “sit this out” are, therefore, voting for Hillary and the end of our Constitutional Republic and are then TRAITORS to the United States of America. Stop the histrionics and VOTE FOR TRUMP – that is our only hope to secure our nation.

#34 Comment By Dain On June 10, 2016 @ 3:04 pm

“The rioters are ordinary riff-raff. Trump is riff-raff running for president. Obviously he’s the bigger threat to Democracy.”

This is a fair point. I disagree, but I see its merit. It’s akin to people being more concerned with police abuse than the violence than is most likely to affect the modal American, i.e. muggings and random assaults.

Trump is the police, anti-Trump protestors are the muggers. Decide which is the bigger threat.

#35 Comment By Neal On June 10, 2016 @ 7:18 pm

Perhaps those who seek to subvert reasoned discussion and debate shouldn’t be so surprised when they succeed.

The name calling and threats coming from Trump and the rest of the GOP for years is finally, perhaps, being met with some resistance. What did you think would happen?

#36 Comment By Nelson On June 11, 2016 @ 12:40 am

Nelson, thats no reason to attack supporters of a candidate. What has happened to the Golden Rule the past 16 years?

I didn’t say it was. But in terms of threats, the attackers are just regular criminals and their effects on Democracy are limited. Trump, if elected, have *much* more power and therefore be a much bigger threat. It’s the difference between bullies… and bullies with nuclear weapons.

#37 Comment By Nelson On June 11, 2016 @ 1:07 am

And it’s not just physical weapons, the president also has access to more mundane weapons as well. The bully pulpit, the Justice department, Treasury department, all kinds of administrations. The type of thing Chris Christie did with the bridges on opening school day I wouldn’t put past an angry Trump.

#38 Comment By Ragnvaldr On June 11, 2016 @ 3:17 am

I don’t understand why the violence is alarming? It’s very predictable and a natural result of having both parties abandon US Citizens in favor of alien cultures.

If anyone finds this alarming I can’t wait to see what the observations will be when the US is no longer able to make good on EBT.

#39 Comment By Kurt Gayle On June 11, 2016 @ 1:25 pm

@ raffishtenant: In response to my comment “the major Mexican drug cartels…would suffer grievously if Trump built a wall the length the border” you answered:

“I see little reason to believe that this is the case. A wall is not a significant impediment to organizations with the cartels’ resources. They will use tunnels, drones, manned flights, boats, catapults, bribery — the same solutions they’re already using, merely ramped up. The laws of supply and demand, and the lucrative nature of the black market under Prohibition II, ensure that they will always find ways…”

Two years ago (“Border crisis stirs up Senate races” in “The Hill” July 12, 2014) you were already saying that a wall would not work. Your comment also seemed to be laying out a case for legalization:

“…We certainly don’t get to sleep soundly with the confidence that it’s all our countrymen’s fault for wanting to use certain recreational substances that aren’t alcohol or tobacco, or that it’s the cartels’ fault for choosing to service that desire, or that it’s law enforcement’s fault for opting to be corrupted by it on both sides of the border. Well, I mean, we DO, but it won’t do us any good. Building bigger, taller fences with sharks and laser beams won’t either, because the economies we’re talking about here will remain greater by an order of magnitude. The drugs will continue to flow from south to north because the U.S. wants them. The people will continue to flow from south to north because prohibition-related violence has made their homelands increasingly unlivable. The cartels will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. We can go broke continuing to address drug abuse and addiction as a criminal justice problem, and buying Obama’s ‘third way’ hedging (which is the most he can get away with at this point) and Congress’s outright abdication of responsibility, or we can phase in something different. Pretty sure I know which path we’ll choose, but, oh, how I’d love to be wrong.”

Please consider two propositions, raffishtenant:

(1) That the wall and stepped-up border patrols have the potential to be a game-changer.

(2) That the wall has the potential to make your implied case for legalization a case of throwing up your hands too soon.

#40 Comment By RichardB On June 11, 2016 @ 2:21 pm

We are living in one of the least politically-violent periods in the entire history of our nation. We have seen far worse political violence – from draft and race riots to lynchings and strikebreaking – over and over and over again, and it has never once seriously threatened the stability of the nation or the general rule of law.

You’d think that somebody writing about political violence would attempt to get a sense of historical context and proportion before publishing, but Mr. Jenkins either didn’t do that or chose to disregard what he learned.

#41 Comment By Robert Bruce On June 12, 2016 @ 12:19 am

We get what we deserve. We are a nation of cowards. How we let things get this bad without a real revolt is simply something beyond cowardice. Home of the brave land of the free is a joke. We only bomb 3rd world nations or enter the big war only at the end when the end has pretty much been decided already(both world wars).

#42 Comment By Mac61 On June 14, 2016 @ 5:47 pm

It is true, as many have pointed out, that the Mexican drug cartels are ultra-violent and have resources beyond belief. Drug trafficking is a rather low-tech operation, though. The major thing you need are millions of Americans who want every drug they can get a handle on.

I imagine the violent leftists who are disrupting Trump rallies and attacking his supporters view Trump as a fascist. It’s more than the wall. Trump told the RNC he’d tone down his rhetoric. But The Orange One just can’t shut his big mouth. I don’t know. It’s deplorable. All of it. You know, to hell with bullies. Maybe if Trump morphed into that statesman that we all know he is……

#43 Comment By EliteCommInc. On June 19, 2016 @ 8:35 pm

“It’s deplorable.”

there are certainly a response or two that I would that Mr. Trump not made. But at the end of the day, they don’t amount too much. And nothing thus far has been “deplorable”.

Nor is Mr. Trump a clown. He is a man operating in waters unfamiliar to him and those of us who have defended him knew that going in and I suspect we that now.

What Mr. Trump needs in my view is that what he has accomplished ha so disrupted the norm that there is a lot of fear among our political, financial, media and educational elite. And like the unrestrained child they accuse Mr. Trump of being and isn’t, they allowed those fears to spill out carelessly without regard for the further damage they themselves are going to the Party.

And if any other candidate had been viable to most voters, they would have won. It’s not a complicated scenario. What is complex and difficult to in down are the attacks from all sides. Now I entered this year distrustful of the leadership on all sides. I am not going to begin to trust them now. In fact, their behavior has revealed an ethic that is frightening irrational. Some in the Republican leadership are more accommodating to liberal ethic and practice they would sabotage their own organization instead of filling the voids they think need shoring.

After a lifetime of supporting candidates and elected, appointed official in the party who did not reflect my views or morals, I find their behavior almost incomprehensible.

Never before has one candidate had the ambitions of the entire populace in mind of either party in quite some time. What his opponents are doing is stirring the political pot a pot that the Republican and conservative leadership should quell. I am not asking anything more than they asked on me. Despite my disagreement, I stood with party despite being abused for the same. People with nothing have stood with the party. People who have lost tangible essentials as a result of the very leadership they have constantly been chided to support.

On the list of Christ’s/God’s worst vices is the embrace of hypocrisy.