By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article highlights that, despite Donald Trump’s repeated suggestions about canceling elections, American history demonstrates a consistent commitment to holding them even during the nation’s most challenging periods. Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover all conducted elections amidst significant national crises like the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt, facing the existential threat of World War II, also upheld democratic electoral processes, proving that American democracy endures through turmoil. These historical precedents underscore that a leader who disregards the fundamental role of elections is unfit for the presidency.
Read the original article here
The very idea of canceling elections, even as a hypothetical or a “joke,” undeniably signals that Donald Trump is profoundly unfit for public office. It’s a notion that strikes at the heart of what makes this country a democracy, and the fact that it’s even a topic of discussion in relation to a former president is deeply concerning. For as long as many of us can remember, elections in the United States have been the bedrock of our political system, providing a fair and free mechanism for citizens to choose their leaders.
While it’s true that there are always instances of attempted or actual fraud in any large-scale election process – given the sheer number of voters – these instances have historically never been widespread enough to sway the outcome of a national election. The constant drumbeat of “election fraud” claims, particularly when linked to the idea of canceling elections, seems to stem from a place of deep personal insecurity and an inability to accept defeat. It suggests a narcissistic tendency to blame external factors and invent scenarios rather than confronting the reality of losing.
The mere contemplation of suspending elections by any politician, let alone a former president who has held the highest office, should be met with severe consequences. Anyone who even entertains such a thought should be prosecuted and permanently barred from holding public office again. This is not a minor transgression; it’s an attack on the very foundations of our republic. The historical precedent is clear: even during times of immense national crisis, like the burning of Washington D.C. in 1814, elections continued, underscoring their fundamental importance.
The comments and actions that suggest a willingness to disregard or manipulate the electoral process reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of democratic principles. It’s a dangerous path that authoritarian regimes often tread, eventually leading to the consolidation of power and the serving of the wealthy and influential. The idea that elections could be canceled, followed by the cancellation of term limits, legislative bodies, and ultimately the Constitution itself, is a chilling prospect that highlights the author’s perceived authoritarian inclinations.
The argument that Trump is unfit for office is not based on a single instance, but rather a long and extensive list of behaviors and statements. His attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and his role in the events of January 6th are not mere political disagreements; they represent direct assaults on the democratic process. When he “jokes” about canceling elections, it’s reasonable to assume he’s expressing desires he would genuinely pursue if he believed he could get away with it.
Furthermore, the focus on election integrity often distracts from a more significant issue: the overwhelming influence of money in politics. Billionaires and corporations pour vast sums into elections not out of civic duty, but because they expect a return on their investment through favorable policies. This undue influence needs to be addressed immediately, and it’s a separate but equally critical concern for the health of our democracy.
It’s difficult to fathom the reaction if a Democratic president or a prominent figure like Barack Obama had even once “joked” about canceling elections. The outcry would likely have been immense, and rightly so. The double standard highlights the gravity of these remarks coming from Donald Trump, especially in light of his past actions and rhetoric that have consistently challenged democratic norms.
Ultimately, the notion that elections could be suspended or canceled is not a joke to be brushed aside. It represents the potential death of the United States as a democratic republic and the end of peaceful transitions of power. Nothing good can possibly emerge from such a scenario. The states, not the federal government, are responsible for running elections, and it’s highly improbable that a federal mandate to cancel them would succeed, though the attempt itself is incredibly damaging. The fact that this is even being entertained by some, particularly among Republicans who may fear losing elections, demonstrates a willingness to abandon democratic principles in favor of clinging to power, a hallmark of authoritarianism. The concern isn’t just about him, but about the broader implications for the country’s democratic future.