Democrats are preparing to win by any means necessary. What’s the Right going to do about it?
Michael Anton’s warning about the upcoming election, “The Coming Coup,” continues to roil the public square. Will Republican leaders do their best to prepare for the crisis of legitimacy—caused purposefully by Democrat Party changes to our normal voting procedures—that now almost surely awaits us for weeks after November 3? We hope so.
But note well: for all the controversy it has caused, no one on the Left has yet tried to refute Anton’s article, point by point. Instead, slime continues to ooze forth from the usual crevices. At first, no one on “the other side” except Ed Kilgore at New York magazine responded. As we said in “Stop the Coup,” Kilgore, much like everyone else in the mainstream press, simply “sidesteps outrageous statements from leftist activists and Democrat Party royalty indicating they do not plan to concede even if Trump wins.” But at least Kilgore nodded towards to the substance of Anton’s article.
The TIPsters Strike Back
The next round of responses revealed what has become the new normal for the American Left. Let’s take three quick examples.
First, a scurrilous, poorly constructed hit piece appeared (listen to us discuss on our ‘The Roundtable’ podcast here) smearing Anton, The American Mind, and the Claremont Institute as anti-Semitic for daring to mention George Soros’s name. As Newt Gingrich—recently silenced on Fox News for the same supposed sin—responded here at The American Mind: “This is ludicrous.” Once again, the article did not deny or disprove anything asserted in “The Coming Coup.” Instead, it absurdly called us racists.
Nonetheless, Nils Gilman, a think-tanker and PhD from UC Berkeley and one of two central co-founders of the Transition Integrity Project that Anton called out in his article, retweeted this execrable piece of garbage and upped the ante—using it to declare that our friend and colleague Michael Anton “deserves” to be shot to death. Writing such a tweet is unthinkable for anyone in a similar position to Gilman on the American Right; we all know such a public statement would lead to unemployment and full-fledged cancellation.
The letter that Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams sent to Gilman’s employer in reply, read in part:
This is incitement to political violence. Mr. Gilman has yet to retract his inflammatory words.
Is the official position of the Berggruen Institute that its political opponents should be killed? Does the Berggruen Institute countenance or tolerate advocacy of political violence by its employees? If not, why has the Berggruen Institute not disavowed this threat? Why has the Berggruen Institute not terminated the employment of Nils Gilman?
I call on you immediately to disavow, explicitly and publicly, political violence against Michael Anton or anyone else. Failure to do so will constitute an endorsement of political violence by the Berggruen Institute, its staff, and its donors.