By Andrew Boyd
Rural Pennsylvania, in the vicinity of Lancaster, was the place of my upbringing, and my parents and grandparents, who, on my mother’s side, were Mennonites of the mostly orthodox variety. It was a generally conservative vibe of the God Bless America, hand over heart, tell the truth, stand up straight, elbows off the table, “yes sir, yes, ma’am” variety.
I watched, then, with special interest the rioting in Lancaster that followed the police shooting back in September. I was encouraged by the response of local authorities in quickly rounding up and charging instigators. It seems law and order still has a foothold someplace, although I’m told by friends who haven’t left that Lancaster, or significant pockets of it, have succumbed to the kind of generalized rot of homelessness, hopelessness, drugs, poverty and cultural nihilism that characterizes far too much of America these days. It’s a really serious and pervasive problem that ought to be the stuff of serious discussion and debate, but what kind of ratings or clicks would that likely generate, right? Moving on.
It’s hard not to be cynical about a lot of things these days, and where the Pennsylvania vote count is concerned, I think conservatives are justified in at least raising an eyebrow when no less than the state’s Attorney General, Josh Shapiro, asserts a full day before the polls are closed -- if Pennsylvania polls can ever be said to be truly closed -- that “if all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose.” Excuse me, what? Reverse political polarities on this one and it’d be the stuff of mainstream media outrage and late-night TV host wet dreams for weeks if not months or years to follow. But down the memory hole it goes. Bye, bye.
That little bit of saying the quiet part out loud followed a series of judicial rulings that also flew in the face of established PA election law -- the kind made by, you know, lawmakers -- because, you know, COVID; just the latest example of left’s pandemic hypocrisy. Thankfully, we’ve had some more recent state court rulings that lean into established legal doctrine, like the courts aren’t supposed to make the law, meaning questionable ballots are at least sequestered, including those from voters unable to produce identification at the time of their filing.
That said, I suspect the game is up, and that all of the litigation in the world, legitimate or otherwise, won’t make a difference in the end. And, so be it. Where free and fair elections are concerned, I’m not rooting for either party, or any outcome except that which follows the letter of the law, because, you know, the ends do not justify the means. What an old-fashioned idea that is, right? Blame it on my upbringing, and pass the shoo-fly pie, please.
Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30-years experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.
_____