At the time of this writing, anti-Trump protesters have been protesting the election of Donald Trump for six straight days.
These protesters should be asked to explain what they are protesting. If they are expressing their personal dislike of Donald Trump, they are expressing a personal feeling in a public forum.
While the protesters’ personal feelings of disappointment and dissatisfaction with the results of the election are understandable, their public display of personal feeling is not. The place to express one’s like or dislike of a candidate is in the ballot booth. Every person has an equal say in the election. This is the concept of one person, one vote.
Protesting the results of an election does not have any influence on the results of the election. That has already been settled.
So the goal of a public protest is not to express one’s voting preferences. The opportunity for that has already passed. The purpose of a protest can be only to make a statement to others, a statement of disapproval. But Voter A has no more right to influence the choice of Voter B than Voter B does to influence the preference of Voter A. The protesters have no right, under the one person, one vote system, to attempt to influence other voters.
The emotional expression of disapproval of another’s voting preference becomes a rejection of another person’s right to vote for the candidate of his choice. Every voter has an equal opportunity to vote for the candidate of his choice, so at some point, disapproving of another person’s choice becomes an attempt to influence his freedom of choice. It is then a form of influence and, if carried out in a threatening way, intimidation.
Those who call Trump a racist for his statements that some illegal immigrants are criminals are also taking a puzzling position. While Trump is called a racist, the Democrats who promote illegal immigration as a strategy to bring people here to do “low-paid jobs no one else will do” is, oddly, not seen as racism. To characterize an entire ethnic group as low-skilled and not worthy of a good-paying job, as worthy only of doing a job beneath the dignity of the average American, is the most extreme form of racism. Protesters should be asked if, 250 years ago, they would have agreed with those who brought people from Africa here to pick cotton in the hot South because it was a “low-paid job nobody else will do.” The honest answer can only be yes.
Those who protest Trump as talking like a racist agree, by implication, that Hillary was better qualified to be president even though her party, the Democratic Party, didn’t want slavery to end in the South and fought the Civil Rights Act. And accept that Hillary called Senator Robert Byrd her mentor, even though he was a KKK leader and actively recruited members into that most racist anti-black group. So the racism accusation doesn’t make sense.
The real message the protesters are giving is that it is acceptable to vote for Democrats who portray Hispanic illegal immigrants as persons of low intelligence and motivation. That the protesters support racial segregation as long as it is being done by Democrats. Somehow they neglect to discuss that the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, freed the slaves despite the protests of Democrats in the South.
Trump is also the anti-establishment candidate. He was rejected by the media and even by members of his own party. This may mean that the protesters, by rejecting Trump, want to preserve the establishment Trump was opposing. In the past eight years, the establishment lowered the earnings of the average American family; drove families out of the middle class, as a Pew Research Center studyhas determined; and enriched the wealthiest people in the nation while placing more people in poverty and food stamp dependency by pushing them out of the labor force. Why anyone would protest in support of these establishment actions is difficult to understand. Support for these actions means supporting the economic decline of the average American family.
What the protesters are doing, then, is rejecting the right of the average voter to express a preference without having to endure scorn. Protesters are against the right of others to vote for their preference.
The other interesting issue is what these protesters are protesting for. If they are protesting against the freedom to choose one’s presidential candidate, they are protesting for their right to use protest as a way to control the votes of others. The real reason they want to control the votes of others is so they and the liberal Democrats can keep control of the government. They do not want voters to control government. They feel better qualified to pick the president for not just themselves, but for everyone.
Their alternative to the election of Donald Trump is to violate the concept of the Constitution; disrespect the one person, one vote concept; and do away with consent of the governed. This reveals more about them than it does about Trump’s supporters.