Squelching political dissent is slippery slope

OPINION:

Much has been said, written and experienced in Washington about the current partisan divide in the country and how angry so many people are. Lifelong friendships and family ties have been severed because someone loves, or hates, President Trump. Perhaps most alarming is how many otherwise rational Americans fume when it comes to matters of politics. Tolerance for a different opinion than one’s own is at an all-time low.

One of the most accurate pollsters in the United States is Rasmussen Reports. In a survey taken Aug. 3-5, Rasmussen found that 48% of Democrats support legal punishment for people questioning the outcome of the 2020 elections.

You read that right. If you question whether something other than then-candidate Joseph R. Biden’s nonexistent huge crowds and his underwhelming charisma brought him 85 million votes, the most of any U.S. presidential candidate in history, there should be legal consequences.

What’s next, public flogging of those who believe in Bigfoot? Should New York detain those who openly hate the New York Yankees? The First Amendment guarantees the right to say and believe whatever you want, even if it may be offensive, so long as it does not endanger others.

The same Rasmussen survey found 42% of American voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the 2020 election.

It is an impossible stretch to suggest that a person believing some shenanigans happened in the 2020 election endangers anyone else. You can agree with them. You can think it is an absurd notion. You can have no opinion at all.

But according to Rasmussen, however, roughly half of America’s largest political party believes a person with that opinion should see the inside of a courtroom. That is an extraordinarily dangerous notion.

To demonstrate just how slippery that slope can be and what it looks like when one political party gets to decide what your opinion should be, one can look to Moldova, a former Soviet republic.

The ruling party there has an overwhelming fear that Russia wants them back, or at the very least, is trying to influence Moldova’s domestic agenda. It is a rational concern. What is not rational is the extent to which the ruling party goes to squelch any opinion other than its own.

There is a conservative movement in Europe that has branded itself as MEGA, for Make Europe Great Again. They work with conservative parties in many countries and host annual conferences in several countries espousing their traditional beliefs on family, immigration, each nation determining its own fate and a host of other topics.

This summer and fall, MEGA gatherings are planned for Warsaw, Dublin and several other cities. In July, MEGA held a conference in Moldova for the fourth time.

The governing party of Moldova is a strong supporter of the European Union and welcomes its influence and governance over their own nation. The MEGA movement is not a fan of the EU, preferring that each nation set its own course.

An argument can be made for either opinion, unless you’re in Moldova apparently.

The late July MEGA gathering in Moldova demonstrated what happens when one side is so convinced it is right that it will punish any dissent. Several speakers and attendees who flew in for the event were detained or turned away. Moldova denied entry to a Czech Member of European Parliament, to a high-ranking European politician, to an American conservative activist, and to others.

“Some organizers and participants aim to promote extremist agendas. Institutions will exercise this legal mandate and will always act in the interests of Moldova and to protect Constitutional order,” the government said in its official statement.

Here is where the irony gets rich. Among the concerns about the MEGA gathering expressed by government and local media representatives was that MEGA promotes opposition to free speech and oppresses political enemies.

The response by the nation? Prohibit the speakers and sentence perceived political threats to jail terms.

In addition to prohibiting conservative politicos from entering, Moldova also went after a mother of two underage children.

Eugenia Gutol was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison for fundraising between 2019 and 2022 for a since-banned political party. The party was banned when its popular leader, who had previously been elected as mayor and as a member of Parliament, was banned and charged with a variety of criminal allegations. He had announced his intent to run for president when his party was suddenly banned.

Ms. Gotul is an elected leader of a small, autonomous region of 140,000 people. She has a reputation for traditional values and opposes the sitting government. Her jail sentence comes just two months before late September parliamentary elections, a not-so-subtle reminder to the Moldovan public that disagreement with the majority can have a steep price.

We saw a version of this play out in the United States, with Mr. Trump being charged in federal, state and local courts with a variety of charges from allegations spanning more than 20 years.

By an amazing coincidence, all of these charges came to fruition as election time drew near. Even if one despises Mr. Trump, it was obvious that the system had been politically juiced.

Thus far, the attempts to use the legal system to get rid of a political opponent in the United States have been the exception rather than the rule. If one looks to Moldova, however, it is painfully obvious just how dangerous that direction can be. It reeks of hunger for power at any cost, rather than for what is right and just.