Why does this article matter? It's something that I figure someone somewhere will ask, and it's a question that needs to be asked if we're to move forward at all with the conversation surrounding election integrity. For me, as I'll cover shortly, the reason it matters is that what it implies cuts against our ability to trust any election because of the obvious electioneering that is alluded to within the pages of the text.
Let me explain.
If you've read that article, you'll notice how Time refers to the people involved with the events described within the article. To call them a "cabal of conspirators" would be an apt descriptor if we take their word for it, which given who they are writing this for- I think we can. And that simple admission should give you pause at the very least, and in a more natural way should send some chills down your spine.
In the article, people admit to creating a "loose coalition" of big business, unions, and big tech to "fortify the election systems." To many, the wording of the piece would seem non-partisan and honorable, that the actors in question were doing not only the right thing, but the moral thing. In fact, it seems that the Time piece goes out of its way to ensure that we come away feeling that the whole effort was just this side of saintly behavior. And it does this by ignoring the underlying problems that big business and tech and unions working in concert to set up an election creates.
There are already problems with big tech that most everyone agrees with. Facebook, Twitter, and Google control most of the internet space and dialog that happens on it, and with that power they have the ability to sway public opinion in ways that no one has ever had before. Couple this ability with corporations and unions and you can see where this is a recipe for the death of individual liberties. We all know what happened to Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson, and regardless of your views of either, you should be asking yourself what this means for your ability to speak up online.
And Time mentions the efforts of these institutions and individuals to crack down on "disinformation" to ensure "Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated." Big business and progressive organizations working in concert to crack down on the spread of disinformation to stop any attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election... That sounds... Fishy at the very least.
Let's be charitable for a moment and say that by "proper" they really mean that the election went off as an election is supposed to go off- without outside interference influencing the results as opposed to attaining a certain result. They still created a situation that has really bad long term repercussions. Namely because one side has unilaterally decided what all this stuff means, and impacted the result of a national election based on those ideals. Even if they did so for noble reasons, they did so in a way that obviously slanted towards what they want- in this instance that was no more Trump.
And even if we would otherwise agree with their rationale, and even if we agree with their end goals, it's still not a good thing. The reason? There are those who already felt that the election was stolen from them based on the fact that Joe Biden didn't really campaign, and when he did, he didn't draw very large crowds nor much enthusiasm. Yet, somehow, he managed to get more raw votes than any other presidential candidate in history. And a close second place was Trump himself in this election (both creamed Obama's totals by 15 and 10 million votes respectively). Trump was campaigning and had large crowds so we can see how he'd have gotten those votes. But Biden? Come on, man.
And now we have this obvious admission to having colluded to impact the elections results. They didn't throw in fake votes (that we know of, none of this was seen by judges who simply decided not to view any of the purported evidence in affirmation of such a claim), but they did set the groundwork for a victory through altering the systems in their favor. Rigging the system to get the results you want isn't any better than throwing fake votes in to get the results you want. Both are equally problematic, and both need to be addressed if we are to ever have faith in the electoral systems of this nation.
So, I guess I have to thank Time for being honest here, and letting us know what actually transpired during this election. Even if we never get the investigations that this election deserves (which, let's be honest, we never will), we can at least know that we're not crazy in thinking that people in power with money and influence worked tirelessly to ensure that Trump didn't get a second term in office. It's still chilling to think that they are being so open about it, and it gets even worse when we think of all the things that were suppressed during the run up to the election and the people and sites that were taken down post January 6th.
It's not a stretch to say that there is a movement going on that aims to silence one half of the dialog at the expense of the other, and the fact that they are flaunting their actions is more insane than I would have thought possible. Maybe in the end pride will goeth before the fall, and we'll see a reversal of this tactic. But right now, I'm not holding my breath.
Battle Specter, out.