The Misplaced Myth of an Existential Threat to Democracy

Every four years, we hear the tiresome claim from the current party in power that they are an existential threat to the nation, implying that the other party is the only hope for saving it. This knee-jerk reaction appears predictable and cyclical, much like clockwork during election cycles. It is worth examining why this narrative persists and questioning the underlying truth behind these claims.

Former President Obama, during his time in office, accused President Trump of complicity in a grave threat to democracy. Yet, it is often omitted how and why this alleged threat would be overturned if either candidate won the election. The rhetoric surrounding the incumbent’s failure to leave office, prevent them from becoming a dictator, or refuse to transition power is frequently presented without concrete details, making the argument appear more about fear-mongering than logical governance concerns.

For 244 years, the United States has managed to maintain peaceful transitions of power. Even during the Civil War, a conflict that almost tore the country apart, the institutions of government functioned as expected. This historical record of stability and unity highlights that the threats to democracy come not from the political figureheads but from internal and external factors that transcend any single individual.

Skeptics of the current political situation must also question the credibility of statements made by previous leaders. President Obama’s comments on Trump being a threat to democracy come off as hypocritical when considering his own actions and words. During his tenure, he too was accused of overstepping boundaries with executive orders and bypassing Congress. His wife, Michelle Obama, has also been criticized for failing to recognize the actions taken by President Trump during her husband's administration.

The idea of a country being irreparably damaged if the other party wins an election is rooted in fear rather than fact. Leaders like Obama often seek to maintain their relevance through continued public engagement and commentary, suggesting that their involvement is necessary for the nation's well-being. This can give an incorrect impression of leadership and power, overshadowing the role of the people and the institutions of government.

The real threat to democracy is not a single individual but the broader ideological movements that shape the political landscape. Big government leftists, particularly those within the Democratic party, pose a threat due to their push for increased governmental control over personal freedoms and economic decisions. The Espionage Act, used to surveil and potentially harm the Trump campaign, exemplifies the abuse of power by those in positions of authority. Any leader, regardless of party, should be held accountable for actions that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of citizens.

In conclusion, the rhetoric of an existential threat to democracy should be critically examined. The historical record of peaceful transitions of power and the actions of previous leaders highlight that the stability of the nation is more resilient than the hyperbolic claims made during election cycles. The true threat comes from the broader political and ideological forces at play, and it is crucial to distinguish between legitimate concerns and fear-mongering for political gain.

Keywords

Presidential elections Democratic threats Election rhetoric Pacful transitions of power

About the Author

John D. Smith is a Political Analyst with over 15 years of experience in the field. He is known for his incisive commentary on the intersection of politics and public policy. His works have been featured in various prominent newspapers and online platforms.