As we approach the upcoming American elections this November, the atmosphere is thick with uncertainty and tension. The integrity of the electoral process itself feels at risk, with potential dangers lurking at every turn-- manipulated voting processes, disrupted vote counts, and obstruction in certifying the results. The Electoral College and Congress, which should represent the final arbiters of a peaceful transfer of power, seem vulnerable to subversion. From the local to federal levels, numerous pressure points could be exploited.
When facing a clear and imminent threat, the best course of action is to not only prepare defensively but also act preemptively. Taking no action-- or worse, waiting to react-- puts us in a dangerous position, just as history has repeatedly shown.
Before World War II, France's defense strategy against Germany centered on reinforcing the Maginot Line, a vast defensive barrier meant to repel any invasion. But when Germany finally attacked, they simply bypassed these defenses, taking France before its military could respond effectively. France's purely defensive posture failed because it wasn't proactive.
Similarly, today's response to potential election disruption often feels defensive-- mobilizing police and military forces in anticipation of possible violent demonstrations. But this approach is reactive, waiting for violence to erupt rather than working to prevent it. Worse, we can't predict where or when such disruptions may occur. The danger of inaction is glaring.
The election process itself can also be disrupted through subtle manipulations of election rules, counting procedures, or even the legal system. Courts may be involved after the fact, but by then, the damage is done. The forces undermining our democracy may already have won, leaving us playing catch-up with legal actions that offer too little, too late.
We must ask ourselves: Why aren't we acting now to prevent these threats? It's like knowing a lion is loose in the neighborhood and failing to remove its teeth while we still can. The stakes are too high for inaction.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. took unprecedented measures to combat the threat of international terrorism. We detained people, passed laws, launched wars, and spent trillions to prevent another attack. Today, we face a different kind of threat-- domestic terrorism, particularly from armed groups willing to act in defiance of democratic norms. These groups, often awaiting a signal, pose a direct threat to the integrity of the electoral process. The January 6th insurrection was a stark reminder of how easily this kind of violence can explode.
We don't need to wait for violence to erupt again. There's a history of proactive measures to address such threats. Think about how we dealt with the Communist Party in America-- banning it when it was deemed a threat to the government. Today's threat is no less dangerous; it's perhaps even more immediate.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
