Earlier this week, in the wake of election denialism in Cornwall, Ontario, I wrote an opinion piece criticizing anti-intellectual behaviour. I wrote this piece for a different publication that I contribute to. I was considering writing this article for that publication as well, but I think that I’ve caused them enough trouble in the wake of the unfair reaction that they received for an opinion piece.
My article was about a specific type of harmful online sentiment. A city made a mistake in their vote counting process, which was, in today’s era of subjective truth, spun into claims that the election was stolen or that foul play was involved. In my piece, I provocatively dismissed these claims as harmful, anti-intellectual, and with no place in municipal politics.
My piece was (obviously) labelled as an opinion piece. I was not claiming to have written an informative piece about municipal affairs — I was subjectively analyzing the responses to these affairs. In spite of this, I was met with criticisms that ranged from reasonable to downright ridiculous. When you mess with the alt-right bull, you get the anti-truth horns. I guess I’ve learned this now.
I was writing about wilful ignorance in crafting narratives and how often that this method is used by conspiracy theorists. I probably, then, should have realized that the response that I was going to get would largely ignore my message. In my piece, I condemned the city’s mistake several times, re-iterating that it is okay (and should be encouraged) to ask questions about what we all witnessed. What ought not to follow, I argued, were baseless claims that an election was rigged or that there was intentional foul play involved.
I’d like to clarify right now that I am (still) not talking about people who addressed valid concerns in an election’s vote counting process. I would even go so far as to apologize for not making this point abundantly clear in my original piece. It is okay to question what occurred. What is not okay, especially in today’s political climate, is jumping from this premise to the conclusion that there was foul play involved in Cornwall’s vote counting process.
On that note, I’d like to address the broader point of tone and respect in an opinion piece. I do not owe election deniers respect. When one denies the results of a democratic election, they have already implicitly made clear that they want no part in our social contract. We respect these institutions because they are the basis of our democratic system and because there is no evidence that they are maliciously broken. When you baselessly attack these systems, you forgo your right to be mad when somebody does not treat you as an equal voice in a democratic system; you’ve already done that yourself.
Somebody responded to my article claiming that they were offended by the provocative choice of words that I employed. If she merely questioned the City’s process, then I apologize for her to have gotten that impression. If she would agree with others that the election was rigged, I would then tell her the same things that I’ve told others: the provocative rhetoric of my article was intentional and it was due to the lack of respect that I have for election deniers.
We should all start off from a place of respect in our civic system. When I say that respect is a privilege, I do not mean that you must first earn it before you can be treated with it. Rather, I’m saying that it is not unconditional. When you are the first party to betray the civic system, you cannot justifiably get upset when others lose respect for you. As a public-facing municipal candidate, you simply cannot baselessly attack the integrity of a democratic elections. You can ask questions. You cannot try to de-legitimize democracy for no legitimate reason. This is a leap that forfeits the respect that one ought to be treated with.
Karl Popper rather famously articulated the paradox of tolerance in 1945:
But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument..
Election denialism is an intolerant ideology. It corrodes trust in established democratic institutions, implicitly establishes that elected officers may not be leading legitimately, and generally meets the criteria of failure to listen to rational argument. And as Popper argues, this sort of ideology ought not to be tolerated by a truly tolerant society.
Arguing with Ghosts
Because I have been accused of not substantially quantifying that this reaction has been a real response to the City of Cornwall’s error, here are a few of my favourite direct quotes from the people of Facebook:
This is exactly why people refused to vote in the first place. So many people said “it’s rigged”. After seeing how the city handled it, kinda seems like it. Who knows the truth, we never will.
Sad to say……but elections are NOT honest!!!!!! Nothing to trust.
There all fixed..when will you dumb fucks learn that!!!
If you guys haven’t figured it out by now, all elections are rigged
This is the result of public-facing political candidates discussing vague conspiratorial sentiment. I have received private messages from candidates who have engaged in discourse around this error, where they’ve told me that they respect the election results but want questions answered. I have no problem with these individuals. I have incredible amounts of respect for them. The same goes to Cornwall’s outgoing Mayor Justin Towndale, who was personally affected by the error. He provided statement to a local news organization, claiming that he accepts the nature of the error, but that the City needs to improve and that their lack of a real apology is disheartening. I agree.
I have also received public condemnation from other candidates for my contemptuous rhetoric and my inability to question the City. To the former, I say that I have established a justification for this rhetoric: we cannot be tolerant of the intolerant. As Popper says, it is our duty to deny them tolerance. These kind of voices must not be allowed to prevail as respectable additions to Canadian politics. They are not. They are more akin to a disease, destroying our trust in institutions and our ability to share any level of common truth. To the latter, it is simply not true. I myself am on record questioning the City a plethora of times. I am not, however, surprised that this has been ignored. My initial article was about individuals weaponizing their incompetence and ignorance to push narratives, after all.
To conclude, respect is a privilege. It is a privilege that we start out with, but it is a privilege that we should all be able to lose if we go too far. I propose a hypothetical: do you think that I ought to respect the voices of white supremacists in a response to them? If not, then you agree with the premise that certain positions ought not to be afforded the due respect of everyday civic participation. It’s now up to you to decide if election denialism fits this premise. I am not equating these two things; I am establishing that there are limits to respect.
I am sorry to all who were offended by my writing style. Some things are more important.
About The Author
