In many if not most households across the country, the election imbroglio is obviously the chief topic of discussion, splitting many families into warring camps, uniting others in solidarity with President Trump.  Fortunately, in our own household, my wife and I are in perfect agreement on practically all points of controversy.

We know beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the election is in process of being stolen by the Democrats and their collaborators in the media, the tech platforms, the intelligence agencies, and a significant cadre of electoral officials, to crown an obvious loser, incompetent, and scoundrel as the ostensible winner.

We know that voter disenfranchisement and tainted electoral protocols were epidemic.

We know that only partisan Democrats, treacherous Republicans, professional liars, corrupt parasites and cronies, and low-information voters could have possibly cast legitimate ballots for Biden.

We know that many people — like some of our acquaintances — simply refuse to believe that a theft on so massive a national scale could have occurred.  Nothing to see here, no need to protest.  They are the movers-on, who could drag the scandal to fruition.

And we know, if the election swindle is not exposed and its results invalidated, that the United States as a constitutional republic will effectively cease to exist, replaced by a hegemonic socialist regime.

But there is one issue on which we tend to disagree.

I argue that should the courts as final arbiter decline to hear the various depositions regarding electoral fraud brought before them, or if they do not to render a just verdict, the majority of the American people will respond with martial determination, refusing to have their country stripped from them by an army of disloyal actors.  They will take to the streets, they will march on Washington in their millions, they will practice civil disobedience as Henry David Thoreau recommended, and certain states might put forth articles of secession.

My wife, however, is skeptical.  Most people, she fears, would accept the results of a fraudulent election.  Heroes are few and far between, and Paul Revere is not likely to ride again.  People would be too busy just trying to survive, trusting that Trump and a remade Republican Party would sweep into power in 2024 — though by that time, America would have defaulted into a one-party socialist state.  Boredom and resignation become powerful Democrat allies.

In fairness, I suspect she may be right and hope she may be wrong.  My feeling is that the magnitude of electoral vandalism may be too great to be passed over and forgotten, but the operative term is the modal — "may."  My wife, whose perceptiveness is generally off the charts, feels that, despite the provocation and the outrage, most of us are not eager to put ourselves at risk, as she notes with regard to the mass of the population who have placidly accepted the illegal COVID restrictions placed upon them by the political authorities.  Why should it be at all different in the political realm?

Farce has its place in the comic theater but not in a national election, even if it features preposterous caricatures like Joe Biden and his vaudeville ilk.  The Overton Window is rapidly shifting, and, if the courts refuse to act, the sequel to our cordial disagreement may soon be clear.  What worries me is that my wife is usually right.  But then, as I like to think, so am I.  I joke that I have been wrong only once, and that was at about 10 in the morning on July 16, 2017.  And I like to believe that all will be well, that the courts will act with juridical propriety, that the question of a popular uprising will be moot, that Trump will be given a second term, and I will not be wrong at noon EST on January 20, 2020.

Graphic credit: Pixabay.