Historian and author Victor Davis Hanson framed the 2020 elections as an example of Democrats changing mechanisms of policy-making, rather than policy itself, in an interview with Fox News host Mark Levin on "Life, Liberty, and Levin" on Sunday.
“The left has said that they are not interested in changing the policies as much as the mechanisms by which they make policy,” Hanson told Levin. "They’re talking about changing 151 years of tradition with the Supreme Court and they can do that if they get rid of the Senate filibuster. And then we're talking about the end of a 60-year tradition of 50 states. So once you have a 15-person Supreme Court, and we’re within a hair's breadth of getting that, because we know what’s going to happen; you can have almost anything if you have the House and the presidency and the representatives and the Supreme Court."
The historian suggested that if the Democrats take the senate seats in Georgia in the upcoming January 2021 Senate runoff election, they will stop at nothing to give themselves the means to seizing unrestricted governmental power by gutting the Constitutional checks placed on a one-party system.
A full transcript of the quoted section of the interview follows:
Mark Levin: What’s troubling to me is the strategy of the Democrats. These were Democrats who brought these lawsuits, basically to soften up the playing field, almost like a military operation. They brought in all the artillery, hammered, hammered, hammered, one court after another, one secretary of state after another. It was obviously very well-coordinated and networked by Mark Elias, one of their lawyers, Bob Bauer, one of their lawyers, who also have been involved with past activities with respect to changing votes and persuading courts and secretaries of state to change votes. And it's obvious; they looked at 2016, Victor Davis Hanson, and they said "that can’t happen again." And they said, "we have to change the rules" and they changed the rules, maybe in a score or more of states, particularly the critical states. And they had a plan set out to do exactly this, and in none of these cases were the changes intended to assist the Republicans. And none of these changes were intended to promote good government. None of these changes were intended to ensure the security of the vote. Quite the opposite. So I can understand; I think you can understand why people are really troubled by this, even apart from the constitutional arguments --
Victor Davis Hanson: I am.
Levin: -- I make and the litigation processes that I talk about, it's like wait a minute, what are they doing? Even 2016, we knew the answer to who would be president at 2 a.m. in the morning; now look at what’s going on. Right?
Hanson: Yeah and it's worse than that because it’s 2016, 2020, but we are looking at 2021 and Georgia is the last redoubt, Mark, because the left has said that they are not interested in changing the policies as much as the mechanisms by which they make policy. And we had a heroic effort in the House, and we had a heroic effort to keep the Senate and Donald Trump did a heroic effort, but the fact of the matter is there's a good chance that our collective fates will hinge on those two seats. And if we lose those two seats, they’re not talking about just nationalizing health care; they're talking about getting rid of a 232-year electoral college with it’s national voter compact. They’re talking about changing 151 years of tradition with the Supreme Court and they can do that if they get rid of the Senate filibuster. And then we're talking about the end of a 60-year tradition of 50 states. So once you have a 15-person Supreme Court, and we’re within a hair's breadth of getting that, because we know what’s going to happen; you can have almost anything if you have the House and the presidency and the representatives and the Supreme Court. And the danger is that this could be a replay of what we just saw on November 3rd. We know what’s going to happen. The polls are going to be massaging an incredible new blue state, Georgia. We’re going to be told that. We're going to be told that Warnock and Ossoff are moderates, that they’re no different than Bill Clinton’s third way. None of this radical stuff is ever going to make it. The media is going to blanket it out. Big Tech is going to deplatform, blue check, whatever they have to do. And the money that we saw in particular states is going to be nothing compared to the billion dollars that will come in from Mike Bloomberg and others. We’ve already seen people as diverse as Andrew Yang and columnists for The New York Times like Tom Friedman say violate the law and move into Georgia. And then stay there temporarily registered and then get out, basically. That was their implication, which is a felony. So what I am getting at is that everything hangs in the balance now. There's no margin for error. And if we think that Georgia is a traditional red state anymore, it’s had enormous changes in demography through illegal and legal immigration, and it’s tech center, the suburban metropolis of Atlanta -- that’s six million of the 12 million people. And if we lose those two seats, I don't think -- you and I have never seen anything like the consequences in our lifetime. We’re talking about structural changes to the Constitution as we know it and to the traditions and protocols of governance for over a century-and-a-half.
Alexander Watson is a CNSNews intern and Christendom College graduate.