The opponents of Donald Trump invariably think it’s unreasonable to believe that the 2020 election was stolen.  Let's call this, for convenience, the "Unreasonableness View."

A stolen election is one in which there is Outcome-Determinative Fraud (ODF).  However, there’s only one way in which it’s unreasonable, not just mistaken but downright unreasonable, to believe that an election was stolen.  This is when there’s obviously no Outcome-Determinative Fraud.  When it’s not clear whether there was Outcome-Determinative Fraud, but widespread fraud definitely or presumably occurred, then people can have a reasonable belief that the election was stolen, and also a reasonable belief that it wasn’t, with the facts ultimately determining which is the superior claim.  I think it’s apparent that it’s not obvious that there was no ODF.  We simply don’t know for sure whether there was or wasn’t ODF, mainly because the government declined to investigate thoroughly and fairly.

What do we know about the whole 2020 election imbroglio?  One thing we know is that extensive mail-in balloting is a virtual invitation to widespread fraud, which is why almost all countries ban it.  This point needs no elaboration or defense, but keep it in mind.

Another thing we know, or can know if we think about it, is that inasmuch as it’s not obvious that there was no ODF, Trump’s opponents must abandon the Unreasonableness View and embrace the idea that the belief that the election was stolen is reasonable but mistaken.  Since it’s not true that there obviously was no ODF, Trump’s opponents must be charged with intellectual dishonesty -- playing a shell game without a pea -- if they don’t do this.  The supporters of Trump, who think it’s reasonable and not mistaken to believe that the election was stolen, are not playing any shell games.

Suppose it’s the case that there was probably no outcome-determinative fraud. It still would not be unreasonable to believe that the election was stolen.  Rather, the belief that the election was stolen would be reasonable but probably mistaken.  (If anything, it’s the case that ODF probably occurred.) The “Big Lie” is entirely, and provably, on the other side.

The Unreasonableness View is a rickety basis indeed for opposing Trump.  Can the “Our Democracy” crowd get anywhere by abandoning the Unreasonableness View and adopting instead the reasonable-but-mistaken standard?  No, but it’s important to see why.

An ambiguity in the reasonable-but-mistaken standard, if left unexamined, is bound to make the case against Trump seem much stronger than it is.  The problem is this.  The belief that the election was stolen is not currently known to be mistaken, and so the most that can be said, if Trump’s critics were to adopt this standard, is that the belief in a stolen election might turn out to be mistaken -- or is in fact mistaken.  That’s useless in proving Trumpian culpability, absent a thorough investigation of election fraud.  Needless to say, if the belief that the election was stolen is known to be mistaken, then believing that the election was stolen would not be reasonable.

As things stand, Trump can’t be found guilty under a reasonable-but-mistaken standard.  Given the government’s indifferent approach to election fraud, Trump can only potentially be found guilty if it’s unreasonable to believe that the election was stolen.  So Trump’s enemies need the unreasonableness standard, but it’s a standard which demands that we believe something absurd, namely that ODF obviously didn’t occur.

It’s easy to see why Trump’s enemies hold so strenuously, and unreflectively, to the Unreasonableness View.  Their doing so isn’t just Trump-hating dogmatism, but a practical and political necessity.  On the philosophical merits, they should abandon it; but practically and politically, they can’t abandon it.  The philosophically bankrupt Unreasonableness View is the Democrats’ and NeverTrumpers’ only means of effectively opposing Trump in the election cases.  That’s why it’s the standard adopted in those cases.

In this precise context, it’s instructive to consider the two main election indictments.

Concerning the attempt to bar Trump from the ballot, we have what might be called the tautological interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: inasmuch as it’s unreasonable to believe that the election was stolen, Trump’s actions in the weeks prior to and on January 6 are insurrectionist.  This is because insurrection is understood in terms of the unreasonableness of believing that the 2020 election was stolen; and the unreasonableness of believing that the election was stolen is confirmed by the fact that Trump had to engage in an insurrection in order to keep his presidency.

It’s a tautology, which is to say, empty and useless, and containing nothing factually significant.

Behold the craggy heights of unreason -- the Cascades of Democrat illogic.

Then there’s the charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding.  This is more complicated, but still a no-brainer in Trump’s favor.  If Trump reasonably believed, or could have reasonably believed, that the election was stolen, then he could not have been illegitimately interfering with an official proceeding.  As for the statutory predicate of “corruptly,” it presupposes that the proceeding is legitimate.

“Obstruction” is neither here nor there.  If it’s reasonable to believe that the election was stolen, then it’s not obstruction to oppose a pell-mell and unverified certification of the election.  Trump’s enemies assume that the congressional certification on Jan. 6 was undoubtedly legitimate.  They are right about that if, and only if, the Unreasonableness View is correct.  The Unreasonableness View is necessary for Trump to be found guilty in the election cases.  Without it, his opponents are empty-handed.  Yet it’s so feeble as a rational standard that one fears (I say this sincerely) for the well-being of special counsel Jack Smith, who looks depressed even at the best of times.

A fierce unreasoning is at the heart of the Trump prosecutions in the election-related cases.  Such unreasoning is dangerous for democracy.  It’s an insecure and unstable democracy that so blatantly ignores reason, and does so with the help of judges, the media, universities, high-tech corporations, and the White House.

Sober reason tells the story, one in which Donald Trump is exactly right about “WITCH HUNT!” When reason is so savagely bent to political purposes, can democracy survive and flourish?  It won’t unless we face up to the fact that the big danger today is from liberal, not right-wing, fascism.  This is proved by the preceding paragraphs.

As Bertie Wooster might say, we’re up against it.  We populist Americans, who are fighting to save the country from liberal tyranny.

Image: Domenico Fetti