Media and Democrats Buck Inaugural History

In the run up to the inauguration, the nation's legacy media unleashed a torrent of choreographed reporting designed to undermine the new administration before its first official day in office.  The goal was to fuel public hysteria, impugn the new president's reputation and invalidate the election.

The propaganda campaign, orchestrated by the Democratic Party, opened with the narrative that the Russians had hacked the election. The intended inference was Vladimir Putin directed an operation to change votes and corrupt voting machines in order to help Donald Trump win.

Of course, it was fake news.  The only credible charge was that the Russians hacked into the the Democratic National Committee's server, a far cry from stealing an election.  Whatever the Russians did, it had nothing to do with the drubbing of Hillary Clinton in the presidential contest.

On the heels of this canard, the media leaked a scurrilous report about a dossier on Mr. Trump secretly compiled by the Russians. Virtually every aspect of the baseless story was discredited, but that didn't stop the media cabal from recycling the bogus report for a week.

Days before the swearing in ceremony, the media dredged up polls showing that Donald Trump's public approval rating had dipped to 40 percent.  These polls, like those trumpeted during the election, were rigged to produce a desired outcome.

Rasmussen Reports, a Democratic polling organization, released its own data that found 52 percent of those surveyed had a positive opinion of the new president.  The difference was Rasmussen polled likely voters, rather than skewing the results by selecting only certain demographics.

Some Hollywood urchins seized on the manipulated polling data to suggest this was grounds to negate the election results and cancel the inauguration.  Democracy be damned. It was a display of mind-numbing ignorance, malicious arrogance and petty disregard for the American electorate.

The relentless media blitzkrieg featured daily updates on which entertainer had snubbed the inaugural, a litany designed to bully pro-Trump performers.  Then one-by-one petulant Democrats began announcing they would boycott the installation of the 45th president of the United States.

Even after it was announced that Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would be on the platform with Mr. Trump, they refused to budge.  Ms. Clinton deserves special praise, as does 92-year former president Jimmy Carter, for ignoring the dark voices of partisan hatred.  

The classless display by the absent Democrats treated Americans to an ugly spectacle unlike any in our nation's proud history. The peaceful transfer of power, symbolized every four years by the inauguration, was mocked and dishonored.  Yet these malcontents saw themselves as principled.

Any American with a grain of knowledge about history understands the inauguration is not about the incoming president.  It is a unique symbol of how a democracy seamlessly shifts power after a presidential election often marked by contention and partisanship.  It is a unifying moment.

Since George Washington took the oath of office in 1789, it has been a sacred tradition for Americans to celebrate the inauguration, regardless of party affiliation or circumstances surrounding the election. No exceptions. But this time the losers wanted revenge at any cost for voters' rejection of their party.

For this historian, it is a reminder of the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.  Lincoln won a scant 40 percent of the popular vote, but waltzed to victory in the Electoral College by carrying the large Northern states. That sparked cries of foul from his three defeated opponents.

Within a month of the election, South Carolina seceded from the union. Six more states thumbed their noses at Lincoln and struck out on their own before the new president's inauguration.  The nation was in turmoil.  Under this cloud, Lincoln took the oath of office on March 4, 1861.

Even his arrival in the nation's capitol was cloaked in murkiness.  Amid rumors of an assassination plot, Lincoln boarded a special train and was spirited off in the middle of the night.  Fear gripped his entourage and he was guarded by a cadre of soldiers.

Although current historians consider Lincoln's first inaugural speech a stunning masterpiece, it was greeted with contempt in his day.  The Charleston Mercury excoriated the address, calling it insolent and brutal. The newspaper attacked the new government as a "mobocratic empire."

Likewise, the media characterized Mr. Trump's inauguration address as a "dark" speech, despite its vision of better days ahead for America.  His speech was a manifesto for returning government to the people, a populist theme that frightens the entrenched political establishment, including the media.

Mr. Trump's supporters can take heart in what happened after Lincoln's inauspicious start.  His legacy grew and today he is generally acknowledged as one of America's greatest presidents. Presidents are ultimately measured by what they achieve, not by the scandalous attacks of the media and partisans.

The tone for the next four years has been set by the rancorous inauguration theatrics. Democrats and their lapdog media, both stung by their loss of power, have made a pact to do whatever it takes to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

They don't give a damn if in the process their antics destroy America.