Why Wouldn’t People Who Kill Babies Also Steal Elections?
By M. Ryan
Unlike Dinesh D’Souza, I do not claim to have evidence of organized, widespread election fraud that cheated Trump out of the White House in 2020. I do, however, have a brain, a functioning understanding of human nature, and several years spent in behavioral science academia (although some of you might discount that last one).
Using these faculties, I have spent the last several years debating with myself whether the election was stolen. Conservatives I respect have argued both sides. After hearing their arguments and seeing their evidence, I reluctantly concluded that I do not know what actually happened. And honestly, neither do you.
I wish I knew. I also wish President Trump et al. had proved their claims in court. I wish he was currently serving his second term instead of the corpse that resides in the Oval Office now. I also wish I were a billionaire, my hair wasn’t thinning, and my academic career meant something.
Unfortunately, as a conservative, I must live in the real world. In the real world, where Biden is (nominally) president, we can either whine about past grievances, as leftists do, or we can wise up and learn what must be learnt.
So, was the 2020 election stolen? More importantly, at this point: Will this upcoming election follow the same fate?
I have finally reached a conclusion. Two, actually: Yes (probably) and yes (definitely). But it was not observable data that convinced me, it was the reason. Specifically, it was an understanding of human behavior and the particular behavior of our leftist friends.
The salient question is not whether Democrats committed election fraud sufficient to put a geriatric dementia patient in the White House. Rather, there are three key questions: could they? would they? and (in their minds) should they?
A model commonly used in organizational ethics and auditing is known as the “Fraud Triangle.” Devised by criminologist Donald R. Cressey, the model suggests that for fraud to take place, three elements must be present: opportunity, incentive, and rationalization.
Opportunity pertains to the “could they” question: Does someone have the ability, position, and power to commit fraud without being caught? Incentive reflects the “would they” question: Is there a desirable outcome to the fraud? Finally, rationalization gets at the “should they” question: Can that person point to a supposedly justifiable reason to make the fraud seem like a moral choice?
As it turns out, the Democrats had all three in 2020 -- and nothing has changed going into 2024.
Let’s start with opportunity. Were the Democrats in a position to pull this off? While this administration’s track-record of incompetence might seem to argue against that thesis, in the aggregate, their grass-roots activists and army of bureaucratic lackeys gave them a distinct advantage.
Take the example a few years ago of Arizona governor Katie Hobbs -- the former secretary of state responsible for elections. Do you really think her position gave her no advantage? She barely campaigned, was down in the polls to her Republican opponent Kari Lake and was behind on fundraising. But she had her hands on the levers of power.
So did many other local and statewide Democrat politicians and appointees, in 2020 and beyond. To take advantage of the opportunity this presented, they did not need a coordinated conspiracy (which their party’s incompetence would have likely derailed). All they needed were some convenient, idiosyncratic distractions; distractions such as voting machine malfunctioning, or water pipes bursting.
From any angle, it appears that the Democrats who run our election operations at the state and local levels, particularly in large cities, had more than sufficient opportunity to commit fraud. There was a practical feast of fraud-inducting stews already cooked up, from mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting to unencumbered non-citizen registration. In states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, they even changed the rules going into the election to provide greater opportunity for fraud while opposing any legislation that would decrease the opportunity for fraud. To cap it all off, the House Democrats recently rejected the mildest of all imaginable voter integrity bills.
So, put a checkmark by opportunity.
What about an incentive? Might the Democrats, who have spent nine years now years screaming that Donald Trump was a fascist (and many years more yelling the same about any legitimate Republican candidate), have been at the very least tempted to cheat? They love to characterize anything they don’t like as a phobic, -ism-inspired attack on themselves personally and democracy broadly. Even the democratic process of voting for Trump was an attack on democracy. Heck, these days, supporting RFK Jr., a liberal democrat, is an attack on democracy.
What do we think they would have done if they saw the early returns appearing to favor Trump? Likely not shrug their shoulders and say, “better luck next time, chaps.” Does anyone honestly believe they would not have tried to do something to prevent it? I mean, come on. They twice impeached the guy over nothing.
So yes, despite their protestations of moral superiority, it’s obvious they had, and have still, an adequate incentive to cheat. Another checkmark.
Which leaves rationalization. Could the Democrats rationalize committing fraud to win an election? Well, the same people have rationalized killing innocent babies, castrating confused children, and burning down predominantly black cities. Indeed, fraud is much easier to justify than most of their mainstream positions. Someone who thinks it’s okay to kill a child just moments before birth would be unlikely to draw the line at lying and cheating.
Again, check. Or rather, checkmate.
Can I prove the 2020 election was stolen? No. Can I predict with certainty that this year will be a repeat? Not that, either. But based on their own words and actions, it is clear to me that the Democrats had the opportunity, incentive, and rationalization to steal the last election -- and having possibly done it once, there is no reason to assume they wouldn’t do it again. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Remember, in the words of leftist icon Maya Angelou, “When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.”
By M. Ryan
Unlike Dinesh D’Souza, I do not claim to have evidence of organized, widespread election fraud that cheated Trump out of the White House in 2020. I do, however, have a brain, a functioning understanding of human nature, and several years spent in behavioral science academia (although some of you might discount that last one).
Using these faculties, I have spent the last several years debating with myself whether the election was stolen. Conservatives I respect have argued both sides. After hearing their arguments and seeing their evidence, I reluctantly concluded that I do not know what actually happened. And honestly, neither do you.
I wish I knew. I also wish President Trump et al. had proved their claims in court. I wish he was currently serving his second term instead of the corpse that resides in the Oval Office now. I also wish I were a billionaire, my hair wasn’t thinning, and my academic career meant something.
Unfortunately, as a conservative, I must live in the real world. In the real world, where Biden is (nominally) president, we can either whine about past grievances, as leftists do, or we can wise up and learn what must be learnt.
So, was the 2020 election stolen? More importantly, at this point: Will this upcoming election follow the same fate?
I have finally reached a conclusion. Two, actually: Yes (probably) and yes (definitely). But it was not observable data that convinced me, it was the reason. Specifically, it was an understanding of human behavior and the particular behavior of our leftist friends.
The salient question is not whether Democrats committed election fraud sufficient to put a geriatric dementia patient in the White House. Rather, there are three key questions: could they? would they? and (in their minds) should they?
A model commonly used in organizational ethics and auditing is known as the “Fraud Triangle.” Devised by criminologist Donald R. Cressey, the model suggests that for fraud to take place, three elements must be present: opportunity, incentive, and rationalization.
Opportunity pertains to the “could they” question: Does someone have the ability, position, and power to commit fraud without being caught? Incentive reflects the “would they” question: Is there a desirable outcome to the fraud? Finally, rationalization gets at the “should they” question: Can that person point to a supposedly justifiable reason to make the fraud seem like a moral choice?
As it turns out, the Democrats had all three in 2020 -- and nothing has changed going into 2024.
Let’s start with opportunity. Were the Democrats in a position to pull this off? While this administration’s track-record of incompetence might seem to argue against that thesis, in the aggregate, their grass-roots activists and army of bureaucratic lackeys gave them a distinct advantage.
Take the example a few years ago of Arizona governor Katie Hobbs -- the former secretary of state responsible for elections. Do you really think her position gave her no advantage? She barely campaigned, was down in the polls to her Republican opponent Kari Lake and was behind on fundraising. But she had her hands on the levers of power.
So did many other local and statewide Democrat politicians and appointees, in 2020 and beyond. To take advantage of the opportunity this presented, they did not need a coordinated conspiracy (which their party’s incompetence would have likely derailed). All they needed were some convenient, idiosyncratic distractions; distractions such as voting machine malfunctioning, or water pipes bursting.
From any angle, it appears that the Democrats who run our election operations at the state and local levels, particularly in large cities, had more than sufficient opportunity to commit fraud. There was a practical feast of fraud-inducting stews already cooked up, from mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting to unencumbered non-citizen registration. In states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, they even changed the rules going into the election to provide greater opportunity for fraud while opposing any legislation that would decrease the opportunity for fraud. To cap it all off, the House Democrats recently rejected the mildest of all imaginable voter integrity bills.
So, put a checkmark by opportunity.
What about an incentive? Might the Democrats, who have spent nine years now years screaming that Donald Trump was a fascist (and many years more yelling the same about any legitimate Republican candidate), have been at the very least tempted to cheat? They love to characterize anything they don’t like as a phobic, -ism-inspired attack on themselves personally and democracy broadly. Even the democratic process of voting for Trump was an attack on democracy. Heck, these days, supporting RFK Jr., a liberal democrat, is an attack on democracy.
What do we think they would have done if they saw the early returns appearing to favor Trump? Likely not shrug their shoulders and say, “better luck next time, chaps.” Does anyone honestly believe they would not have tried to do something to prevent it? I mean, come on. They twice impeached the guy over nothing.
So yes, despite their protestations of moral superiority, it’s obvious they had, and have still, an adequate incentive to cheat. Another checkmark.
Which leaves rationalization. Could the Democrats rationalize committing fraud to win an election? Well, the same people have rationalized killing innocent babies, castrating confused children, and burning down predominantly black cities. Indeed, fraud is much easier to justify than most of their mainstream positions. Someone who thinks it’s okay to kill a child just moments before birth would be unlikely to draw the line at lying and cheating.
Again, check. Or rather, checkmate.
Can I prove the 2020 election was stolen? No. Can I predict with certainty that this year will be a repeat? Not that, either. But based on their own words and actions, it is clear to me that the Democrats had the opportunity, incentive, and rationalization to steal the last election -- and having possibly done it once, there is no reason to assume they wouldn’t do it again. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Remember, in the words of leftist icon Maya Angelou, “When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.”
