It is hard to find a more sniveling, hypocritical group of “adults” than the Left has proven to be.  Remember the howls of anguish when Trump said he might not support the election results if he didn’t win?  To say such a thing was paramount to denouncing democracy, said the hand-wringing Left, conveniently forgetting Florida several elections ago.

But then came the election, and Trump’s win.  Perhaps ungraciously, but Clinton did concede the election.  But I’m beginning to wonder if there is another Democrat or Left-wing advocate in the country that has.  Immediately we were shown evidence of what democracy means to hundreds of intellectual offspring of public education as they took to the streets protesting the results.  After sifting through their reported comments, the bottom line seemed to be that a victory by Trump was, ipso facto, unjust

Then we had the spectacle of the election results of key states being contested.  Unlike in Florida, the ultimate question was not just a verification of the vote counts.  This time, the ultimate aim was to allay questions about the total structure of the voting process, about the vote being “rigged” or “hacked.”  Trump, famously, had said the voting was rigged, meaning the parties that were supposed to be neutral were obviously not.  But what the Left meant by their accusation was that cheating was involved, vote stealing, we used to call it.  Here in PA, the courts threw the case out, saying there was no evidence to justify legal intervention in the certified results.  In Wisconsin, that was proven true there too – Trump gained votes as the recount went on.

Finally, in a last-ditch effort to pull victory from the obvious defeat, the Left has embraced the idea that the public’s votes don’t mean anything, and the Electoral College should vote for the “best” candidate, regardless.  Even a big-government Republican would be better than Trump, so Democratic electors should be free to vote for such a candidate.  So off to Court they went again, to see if they could get a judge to overthrow the laws certain states have requiring a state’s electors to vote for the winning candidate.  They “contended that the law binding their vote to Colorado vote winner Hillary Clinton violated their First Amendment rights and the intents of the Constitution’s framers.” (per today’s AP)   Uh, if true, what would their voting in disregard of the voter’s wishes mean for the voter’s first amendment rights?  What does it do to the concept of democracy?

Political scientists are fond of saying that war is simply politics by other means.  I think that is backwards.  Politics is war by other, less harsh, means.  That has always been the Left’s definition of politics.  It’s just that, for the first time in many years, they had to expose their hand.

• Current Events