Throughout Donald Trump’s initial presidential term, Democrats frequently expressed their concerns about the erosion of “norms” in Washington. The term “norms” refers to the standard expectations for how political processes typically function.
During this period, the Democrats often reacted dramatically to Trump’s remarks and behavior, demonstrating their disdain for his approach. The claim that Democrats uphold traditions and norms does not hold up under scrutiny.
The past four years have clearly shown this inconsistency. However, with Trump’s return to the political stage, their affinity for norms seems to have resurfaced.
Trump’s political style is decidedly unconventional; he does not shy away from voicing his opinions without first gauging public sentiment or conducting polls. His recent comments regarding Greenland exemplify his willingness to speak candidly, irrespective of focus-group feedback.
This directness is a remarkable aspect of his appeal to voters beyond the political elite. While Democrats celebrate their current stance of not disputing an election result they lost, it is essential to recall that their past behavior tells a different story.
Historically, they have often reacted similarly to Trump’s alleged disregard for norms, particularly when it comes to elections. Before January 6, 2021, Trump had never urged a challenge to the Electoral College vote results, which represented a clear departure from established practices—unless one considers the objections raised by Democrats in previous elections they lost since 2000.
Reflecting on the year 2000, when I was in college and writing for my school newspaper, I recall penning a piece about how Al Gore and the Democratic Party attempted to undermine the election results in Florida. The culmination of their efforts was an objection to the certification of the Electoral College vote.
The New York Times reported that several members of the Congressional Black Caucus sought to halt the counting of Florida’s electoral votes, citing disenfranchisement of Black voters.
Additionally, the Times noted that Black lawmakers publicly rejected the legitimacy of George W. Bush’s presidency during a news conference outside the House chamber.
Such actions were unprecedented at the time, as it was uncommon for elected officials to label a president as “not my president” in such a direct manner.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was confident in his chances for the presidency, particularly in Ohio, but the voters had a different perspective. Following the events of 2000, Democrats called for touch-screen voting as they found traditional methods insufficient.
Shortly after Bush’s reelection, reports surfaced about computer malfunctions with voting machines, fueling conspiracy theories. At that moment, the New York Times reported on the discovered error in preliminary vote counts, with local officials assuring that it would be corrected in the final tally.
However, this glitch added fuel to the fire of suspicions regarding the election’s integrity. Did the media express outrage over this baseless challenge to the electoral process during the second consecutive election Democrats questioned?
An outstanding number of House Democrats objected to the 2004 Electoral College certification without any concern for violating established norms. Strange, isn’t it?
In the 2016 election, numerous Democrats attempted to overturn results across nine states, including Alabama and Wyoming. Among them was Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who made it his mission to block the Electoral College certification immediately upon his swearing-in, showing no remorse for his actions.
These instances reflect only a fraction of the presidential elections Democrats have contested or sought to overturn. The election of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in 2018 sparked conspiracy theories from Stacey Abrams (D) after her defeat in Georgia, even record voter turnout.
It is also worth mentioning the Democrats’ ongoing efforts, often described as lawfare, to distract and undermine the presidential candidate from the opposing party through legal challenges, concocting politically motivated charges that would not apply to others.
The patterns of behavior displayed by Democrats extend beyond election disputes. Their readiness to label opponents as “Nazi” at the slightest disagreement exemplifies their shift away from previous standards of discourse.
Just nine weeks ago, their election campaign culminated in a blatant “reductio ad Hitlerum,” a tactic previously deemed unacceptable.
While Democrats profess a commitment to preserving norms, the reality of their actions tells a different story. Derek Hunter serves as the host of the Derek Hunter Podcast and previously worked for the late Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).
