A democratic system depends on consent of the governed.
Our Founding Fathers created a system of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It spelled out that “the people” were to choose our rulers and lawmakers through election.
True, under that system as originally created, women and slaves couldn’t vote; so it really was a government of, by, and for a white male elite. But the system evolved over time to become more inclusive; and today, all citizens age 18 or over, except those imprisoned for crimes, are able to participate in our democracy.
In return, it’s expected all will accept election results (subject to proper legal challenge), and fulfill various citizens duties (paying taxes, military service, jury duty, etc.). Voting is encouraged, but not required as in some other countries (both democratic and undemocratic).
But what if a substantial segment of our population doesn’t consent to be governed by election winners? When that happened in 1860, the duly elected president, Lincoln, used military force to compel the Confederates to stay in the Union and submit to its elected government. So, that’s one possible response.
Fast forwarding to 2024, we have a movement leader, and a political party behind him, saying they don’t have confidence in our elections, aren’t willing to be governed by their political rivals, and some are even talking of “civil war.”
What now? Well, first of all, self-inflicted lack of confidence in elections doesn’t entitle losers to win. It’s that simple. If they want to contest an election outcome, fine, our laws provide for that; but it takes evidence, not just lack of trust, to overturn an election result. That’s clearly spelled out in our election laws. If they can’t prove in court that an election outcome was determined by fraudulent or ineligible votes, it stands and they’re duty-bound to accept it.
What if they don’t, and resort to violence? That happened on Jan. 6, 2021. On a scale of that magnitude, it’s largely a matter for the police and criminal courts to handle. Several hundred of the Jan. 6 rioters were convicted of various crimes, and some are serving prison sentences. That’s one way to defuse an insurrection.
But what if it’s bigger, on the scale of a civil war? First of all, threats are not a reason to surrender our freedom to choose our government, or let election losers take over. That’s dictatorship. But I don’t think folks who want civil war, if they exist, can be deterred by appeals to fair play.
What about the potential consequences? Civil wars are the most vicious of all wars. Many would die, combatants and innocents alike. Anyone who prefers civil war over losing an election is dreaming if they think the killing will be one-sided. They and theirs are going to die, too.
A civil war on a large scale also would severely disrupt our economy, inflict massive property damage, drastically lower property values, and crash financial markets. Vast wealth would be lost. Runaway inflation and mass unemployment also are likely consequences. But I don’t think you can reason with people who would entertain civil war is an alternative to elections.
If you can’t discourage or deter civil war, and you’re unwilling to surrender to those threatening it, what options does that leave? Basically, what Lincoln did. Oppose force with force, and see who wins. After the smoke clears, there may not be much left to govern.
Obviously the best option is for the hotheads to calm down, look ahead to the next election, and try to be more competitive next time with candidates and a platform that a majority of voters will find appealing.