It's my own fault. I should have stopped following notorious socialist Jim Wallis, whose pseudo-Christian publication Sojourners (previously known as the Post American before they decided to shroud their mission in the cloak of Christianity) is steeped in the religion of progressivism, long ago.
I don't mind having deep, fundamental, worldview-level disagreements with people. I do mind having people lie to me about what their beliefs really are, dishonestly hijacking the language of Christ for their own agenda rather than His. But alas, like a gawker staring at the gratuitous carnage of a 20-car pile-up, I continue to subject myself to the intellectual abuse of following Wallis and his posse.
That's why on Saturday, I was privileged to see this panicked post:
Wallis is no doubt referring to the recent interview Trump granted to Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that resulted in this exchange:
"But can you give a, can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?" Wallace pushed.
Trump responded that "I have to see. Look, you – I have to see."
"No, I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either," he added, referring to being asked the same question in the 2016 election.
You might recall that prior to the 2016 election, when every pundit both left and right was convinced that Hillary Clinton was about to sail to victory, this same fear-mongering persisted on the left. Cable news hosts, newspaper editorial boards, and yes, even secular progressives posing as Christian activists, collectively fretted that the deranged New York businessman might not accept his electoral beatdown at the hands of a woman he found so contemptible.
"What if he claims the election was rigged and spends the next four years relentlessly peddling all manner of conspiracy theory and collusion hoax to undermine and disrupt her term?!" they worried, right before they spent the next four years relentlessly peddling all manner of conspiracy theory and collusion hoax to undermine and disrupt his.
I admit that even though I'm no huge fan of the president that I get an enormous amount of enjoyment out of watching his most despising opponents writhe in their own hypocrisy. It serves as the perfect reminder that though Trump is anything but a public servant of unifying character, the alternative remains worse.
Which is precisely why dispassionate political observers will recognize that the far more concerning possibility post-2020 election is not a defeated Trump Twitter-tantrum or him attempting to barricade himself in the Oval, but rather how physically violent his opposition will become if he wins.
After all, while leftists can point to circumstantial evidence of Trump's cantankerous and narcissistic behavior, as well as his coy response to Wallace's question, they themselves have four years of verbal, political, and physical unrest to indict their own lack of commitment to democratic decisions.
What's more, they aren't even trying to hide it:
It's tough to know what else to call that besides a thinly veiled threat. The author, Ronald Brownstein, is more than just a senior editor at The Atlantic; he's also a senior political analyst for CNN – in other words, not some crank writing at the Daily Kos. He's a mainstream voice on the left writing a piece of political extortion – "either do what we want, America, or we burn your cities down."
But Trump is the divisive one, trying to "split the country in two"? Trump is no unifier, it's true, but the title of Brownstein's piece is a classic example of psychological projection.
When George W. Bush won his first term, the left called him an illegitimate president for four years. When he won re-election, the left claimed the voting machines in Ohio were hacked, and the election stolen. Then miraculously America conducted two consecutive, wholesome, fair, and valid presidential contests before suddenly being ransacked with Russian collusion and voter suppression the next time a Republican won the White House. The left pushed their discontent to the point of presidential impeachment coupled with outright denials of defeat by their own candidate.
There's one side of the American political spectrum that has a systemic problem accepting electoral defeat. And just so Jim Wallis can rest easier, it isn't President Trump's side.