Tribal Morality: The Difference Between Election Fraud And Voter Suppression

When conservatives started worrying about election fraud before the 2020 election and complained about it after, they were told they were anti-democratic. It’s a whole different story in 2022 now that Democrats are insisting that the upcoming elections are a recipe for voter suppression.

The Democrat party and its operatives in the federal government have been outraged for over a year when they contemplate how anyone in his right mind could claim that the 2020 elections were fraudulent, despite voluminous and well-documented evidence suggesting massive and coordinated fraud and cheating during those elections.

Democrats keep claiming, without proof, that there has been no “significant” election fraud in 2020 and insisting that anyone who wants to claim there was must prove it or be silenced. Then, of course, they cut off all efforts to show that proof.

Most good faith attempts before judges to prove widespread fraud and cheating were either dismissed before the elections because it was “too early to sue” or, after the elections, because it was “too late to sue,” or the plaintiffs were dismissed for lack of standing. Outside of courts, conservatives were denied investigation and follow-ups (the FBI routinely denied any election-fraud investigations in 2020 and 2021), despite evidence from hundreds, if not thousands, of eyewitnesses, experts, and other inquisitive individuals and groups.

But once the Democrats grabbed federal power in both political branches of the U.S. government, they promptly changed their tune about claims of election fraud.

Now, when they face likely losses in coming elections, they keep claiming—without significant evidence to prove their claims—that the election systems in several states condone, facilitate, or cause “voter suppression.” They demand that Congress pass their H.R.1 bill, also known as the For the People Act of 2021, or its substitutes, the Freedom to Vote Act (dubbed by their Republican opponents as the “Freedom to Cheat Act”) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, even if doing so would mean suspending long-standing, accepted legislative procedures. Some Democrats, like Mr. Joe Biden, are going further, insinuating without a shred of evidence that the 2022 elections are going to be “illegitimate” if the above-mentioned bills are not passed into law.

In 2022, it’s acceptable for Democrats to make these absurd claims and accusations without proving first that they are true. No one requires or expects credible data, scientific (statistical, that is) analysis, or that the alleged “victims” of the alleged “suppression” sue the “offending” states. It’s enough that a Democrat majority in Congress agrees.

You see, the Democrats gave themselves the un-constitutional mandate to decide, by purely political means, when a claimant has a burden of proof and when he/she does not. When someone makes a claim that, if granted, might prove detrimental to the Democrat party’s partisan/political goals or objectives, then it must be proved using a high standard of proof. But when someone makes a claim intended to benefit the Democrats’ partisan political goals and objectives, then it is presumed true or valid and accepted as such. Those who challenge its validity must meet a high standard of proof to show that the claim is false or invalid.

In sum, Democrats subscribe to what has been known as tribalistic morality. This phenomenon can be illustrated with the following example: In a tribalistic morality society, the evil is “When someone has stolen my tribe’s cow,” while the good is “When my tribe has stolen someone’s else cow.” That pretty much describes the moral foundation of the Democrat tribe.

Image: Protests by makyzz. Freepik license.

When you look closely, you may find a very long list of issues and controversies in which the Democrats exhibit their tribalistic morality. A few typical examples from that list include:

  • Propaganda and censorship, which is wrong if Democrats are censored or propagandized but is good if their adversaries are;
  • Weaponization of law enforcement and its agencies, which is wrong if Democrats are targeted by politically-motivated enforcement of the law but is good if their adversaries are;
  • Monopoly on political power, which is good if Democrats have it but is wrong if any other party or group has it;
  • Denials of people’s right to protest, which is wrong if Democrats or their constituencies are denied the right to riot, burn, and intimidate when they are upset or disappointed but is good if their protesting adversaries are summarily declared “domestic terrorists” and are being viciously prosecuted for made-up crimes or sternly punished for even minuscule infractions;
  • Imposition of a photo ID requirement, which is wrong if it impedes what Democrats want to be easy, like cheating in elections, but is good if it impedes what Democrats want to be difficult, like buying a firearm or disobeying Draconian restrictions on people’s constitutional rights during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic); and
  • Violations of individual liberty, which are wrong or good, depending on whether the Democrats and their base are constrained by those violations or benefit from them.

Thus, typical Democrats, particularly those now entrenched in Congress and the White House, are devoted tribalists and tend to conflate the political good of their own party with the good of the American people as a whole. This fact explains why Democrats treat with disdain and hostility any suggestion that the Democrat party may lose its current chokehold on the U.S. government. They view it as a national catastrophe.

That is not quite surprising if one remembers how Soviet and Marxist regimes were permanently attached to their perpetual political power under the pretext of it being a necessary precondition for defending justice and the well-being of the oppressed common people. It’s worth noting that none of those regimes actually bothered to deliver all the goodies that they had promised so generously to their captive constituencies.

Mark Andrew Dwyer’s recent columns are posted at The Federal Observer and at Canada Free Press. Links to his other commentaries can be found here.

If you experience technical problems, please write to