Sarah Isgur is a devoted former aide to Donald J. Trump; she also makes occasional appearances on TV news/talk shows to offer her sharp perspective on political issues of the day.
I enjoy listening to her. She makes me think about my own bias.
However, Isgur recently took a “both sides” argument many steps too far. She took it over the proverbial cliff.
“Both sides,” she said, are going to contest the result of the next presidential election in 2024. Both sides? She suggests that if a Democrat wins the White House — presuming it’s President Biden — that the GOP won’t accept the result any more than it did in 2020. She also suggested that if Republicans win the White House, Democrats are going to challenge the results, suggesting that whoever wins isn’t “legitimate.”
Isgur’s proof? She said that in 2017, defeated Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton didn’t accept Donald Trump’s election. I get it. Clinton refused to accept the legitimacy of Trump’s election, given the interference that occurred during the campaign.
However … Democrats did not storm any buildings. They didn’t invade Capitol Hill. They didn’t seek to stop the certification of the result with a violent riot. Hillary Clinton did not make a fiery speech exhorting her supporters to “fight like hell” to “take back the government.”
Do you see where the “both sides” argument breaks down? I hope so, because it’s quite obvious to me.
While both sides might think the other side’s victory doesn’t pass the smell test, only one side has demonstrated a willingness to launch a frontal assault on our democracy.