Greer | If Georgia’s 2020 elections were illegitimate, where does that logic end?

Early reports this week prepared the country for yet another speech by the president about election integrity and voter fraud. 

These early reports also noted the president would invoke the legitimacy in the election of U.S. Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock during the general election cycle — the same election cycle that former President Joe Biden won Georgia and then-President Donald Trump lost in his reelection bid.

Many of us braced for the Thursday night speech. We heard political commentators and analysts recalling the constant drumming of election “fraud” in the 2020 election. Because of the “fraud” theories, actions from some states to “reduce voter fraud’” ensued. Many of the states, including Georgia, had no tangible voter fraud cases that could have impacted the outcome of the election. Yet, states continued with such laws. 

Some states pressed voter ID laws to, as they emphasize, reduce voter fraud. Evidence about the impact of voters using fraud to vote has not produced any significant votes. Interestingly, some of the reports of those who committed voter fraud did so on behalf of Trump, not Biden.

During this time, former New York City Mayor Rudy Guilliani settled a multi-million-dollar defamation lawsuit brought by two Fulton County election workers for consistently lying on television, in print and on social media/podcasts about these two election workers which also created a hostile and dangerous living environment for these two women.

After several court cases since 2020, Georgia then experienced the president of the United States supporting a raid in February on the Fulton County election office to retrieve the county’s voter rolls. For what purposes? To prove fraud?

Then early reports of the Thursday speech claimed the president would call into question the “legitimacy” of Ossoff and Warnock.

Legitimacy. An interesting word.

This president has questioned the “legitimacy” of so many people to whom he disagrees with or who are different from him.

This president, prior to becoming president, questioned the legitimacy of five Black and brown teenagers’ innocence in New York who were questioned, found guilty, then finally exonerated after decades of incarceration on death row for a crime they did not commit.  To this day, this president has not apologized or acknowledge he was wrong about these young men.

This president, prior to becoming president, questioned the legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s birthright citizenship. This president went so far as to claim on national television, in print, and on social media he had private investigators in Hawaii who were “finding” evidence to “prove” the first Black president of the United States is not a “legitimate” citizen. In addition to Obama’s citizenship, his and former first lady Michelle Obama’s educational attainments were questioned and so much more.

This president, while running for his second attempt at a second term as president, questioned the heritage of the first Black and Asian woman to be a Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

After becoming president for the second time, this president questioned the legitimacy of many people who he disagreed with — questioned their education, skills, intellect and judgement. Simply because of the disagreement.

For some, this behavior is on brand. This behavior and words are expected based on past behavior. And as we all know, when behavior is rewarded, why should the behavior change? 

Here is what we should not expect — for others to legitimize these behaviors by remaining quiet or indulging the lies.

When this president questioned the legitimacy of Barack Obama, media outlets indulged the lie. Legacy media interviewed Donald Trump in 2009 for months on end giving unearned coverage to the lie. Legacy media legitimized a lie. So much so, the first Black president was pressured to show his birth certificate on national television to demonstrate his legitimacy. Legacy media aided in the attempt to delegitimize the first non-white male president of the United States for many months. And why? To what end?

Legacy and new media along with celebrities again aided in the attempt to delegitimize the first Black-Asian woman to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States. Former Vice President Kamala Harris was disrespected by the continuous mispronunciation of her name. Or, calling her by her first name only. Questioning her education. Questioning her legitimacy of whether or not she was qualified to be president without a list of qualifications outside of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section I, Clause 5.

This president, before becoming president, even questioned the birthright citizenship of John McCain and Ted Cruz. 

For Georgia, the silence of the majority of high-level Republicans, Republicans in the General Assembly, county officials, leaders in the state Republican Party to defend the election process and security for the citizens and voters in 2020 election is deafening. How are these officials okay with the constant questioning of the legitimacy of Georgia’s elections?

Are our elected officials willing to sideline Georgians for the sake of indulging or remaining quiet about a lie?  What happened to the courage demonstrated by one of the original 13 Colonies?  What happened to standing up for the people? 

If Ossoff and Warnock are illegitimate, are the other winners of the 2020 election illegitimate? If three races in 2020 are in question — office of the president, and the two U.S. senators — how are the other offices legitimate? Should every other race be questioned? 

See how that logic is not logical? In the words of today’s youth “that math is not mathing.”

I can already hear the dissent … “but, Democrats do the same.”  When have Democrats had the power and authority to significantly question the outcome of an election to the point of there being an insurrection with convicted insurrectionists being pardoned? I hear the response … George W. Bush as the instinctive response. No. Not the same.

Disagreement with the results of an election is not the same as attempting to overturn an election. Disagreement with election results is not the same as spending millions of taxpayer dollars to question an election result. Disagreement with an election is not the same as raiding election offices for voter rolls.

We can disagree with each other. Disagreement does not mean we are quiet or we indulge. We find a way to move forward. This is how functioning democracy works.

If we must be quiet to save someone else’s feelings, if we must be quiet to not show disagreement, if we must agree regardless of the cost, we are not moving forward as a country. We are not moving forward in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. We are not moving forward in the spirit of our Constitution. 

Silence can and has led to violence.

Appeasement does not result in peace.

Tammy R. Greer has a PhD in political science and teaches public policy.

---

Want sharper Georgia political analysis in your inbox? Become a founding subscriber to The Peach Pulse.