James Bovard’s commentary highlights the intense scrutiny surrounding the integrity of the electoral process, particularly in light of potential discrepancies in the vote count during the upcoming presidential election, should Kamala Harris emerge victorious. He draws parallels with the post-2020 election narrative, where dissenting voices questioning the validity of results were largely condemned and likened to insurrectionists. Bovard questions the honesty of the vote count, pointing to perceived inconsistencies and manipulations under the Biden-Harris administration. The public, according to him, may be cautioned against questioning election outcomes, treated instead to a narrative portraying results as sacrosanct, raising concerns over transparency.
The author critiques the narrative that crime rates have dramatically dropped during Biden’s presidency, arguing that this claim has been rendered dubious by the exclusion of significant urban areas in FBI crime statistics. This selective reporting, he suggests, is part of a broader strategy by the administration to obscure the ramifications of policies like open borders, where the true scale of illegal immigration has not been openly acknowledged. Kamala Harris, in particular, has faced criticism for dodging questions about immigration issues, mirrored in how the administration manages to downplay contentious issues to maintain public favor.
Moreover, Bovard points to concerning trends regarding mail-in ballots in the upcoming election. He argues that the leniency towards late-arriving ballots casts doubt on electoral integrity — akin to previous instances of financial mismanagement. He emphasizes past failures in major initiatives, such as Biden’s broadband internet expansion and electric vehicle infrastructure, suggesting a pattern of promising much yet delivering little. He contends that the perceived lack of accountability around such promises undermines public confidence in broader government assurances, including those about electoral transparency.
The author also expresses apprehension regarding the lack of identification requirements for voting, postulating that this could lead to unverifiable outcomes. This sentiment ties back into the larger issue of unverified electoral processes paralleling the administration’s reluctance to divulge sensitive information. Whistleblower allegations and other potentially scandalous details remain shrouded in secrecy, leaving voters uninformed and raising ethical concerns about the implications for the election.
Bovard’s narrative evokes skepticism about the political elite’s capacity to deliver on grand promises — a theme he likens to the electoral process itself. He asserts that the actual counting of votes may be less pivotal than the rhetoric surrounding the legitimacy of the process, with significant vulnerabilities present in ballot collection and confirmation protocols, especially in urban centers. As he notes, there are parallels drawn between the security of ballot drop boxes and other community institutions, pointing to a perceived lack of safeguards.
Finally, he anticipates a dissonance in political narrative should Trump reclaim the presidency, where any victory would be labeled illegitimate amidst critiques of his rhetoric at rallies. This potential scenario showcases a sharp divide in political allegiance, highlighting the challenges within the electoral landscape, where perceptions of credibility and legitimacy come under scrutiny. Bovard’s reflections critique both party responses and systemic electoral integrity, indicating simmering tensions and a fractured electorate moving into the elections.
