... take that seriously as well. Because it's being undermined.
Two of my greatest frustrations about the outcome of last year's presidential election are (a) the demonstrable interference in the election by Vladimir Putin and various agents of either the Russian government or Russian-based businesses, and (b) the voters who sat at home sulking that Bernie Sanders wasn't allowed to be the Democratic nominee, and otherwise being furious over Hillary's alleged sabotaging of his candidacy. To them, there was no Russian sabotage; Hillary was the one who was the true threat to democracy.
I've always wanted to ask these people why, if Hillary-related sabotage was the reason behind Bernie's failure to win the Democratic nomination, did Bernie then turn around after the primary season and endorse Hillary? If there was real sabotage that cause real damage to the process, and Bernie is the stand-up guy his supporters say that he is, why then did he not stand up to Hillary and denounce the damage? Is it possible because, even if some members of the Democratic National Committee tried to undermine Bernie (and I concede that there is evidence of this), isn't it possible that it never got far enough to damage Bernie? Or that it happened without Hillary's knowledge or support?
It doesn't matter to these people. All that matters is the purity of their point of view, which must never, ever, be sullied by facts. Including that facts that have emerged, are emerging and are continuing to emerge about the Russian connection. It pains me to say this but, quite frankly, this makes them in my mind the left-wing analog to Trump supporters. Which means that, with the help of Trump supporters, they are contribution to the destruction of the most successful free society in the history of the world.
In fairness, I don't think they mean to do that. I think that most of them truly believe in the best values of this country, and expect us to do more to live up to them. On that, I agree with them 100 percent. But we live under a system of government that is designed purposefully to thwart attempts at dramatic change, unless supported by large majorities. That is why incremental change within our system is the only kind that is truly possible. If you're made about the influence of big-moneyed interests, fine. Be angry. Fight the influence of money in politics every way you can.
But don't sit at hope waiting for the perfect cause, the perfect party, or the perfect candidate. We ourselves are not perfect people living in a perfect world. And in our highly imperfect world, we now have a president who is actively trying to take away your right to vote. Thankfully, nearly all of the states are standing up against it.
But that's for now. The future is not guaranteed, and neither is democracy. Sitting at home doesn't preserve it. Voting for candidates who can win and advance your values does. Never lose sight of that fact. And never fail to heed it.