Each new controversy seems to add a buzzword or two to the public lexicon. After the Charlottesville riot of 2017, the term “false equivalence” migrated from the obscure realm of philosophical jargon into everyday political rhetoric. Nowadays it’s used primarily by Democrats and their fellow travelers, who deploy it to defend the partisan principle that no transgressions by Democrats are as bad as those committed by Republicans. Any Democrat would, for example, call it a “false equivalence” to compare the Clinton campaign’s fabrication of a Russian-collusion narrative to Donald Trump’s stolen-election myth.

“Equity,” which previously appeared mainly within the context of law or finance, has fallen into common usage as a desirable social goal since the popular dalliance with critical race theory. Many who are not very careful in their use of language probably regard it as a synonym for equality, missing the big difference in literal meaning and political connotation between the two words. An appeal for equality, which few Americans would refuse, amounts to someone saying, “Give me the same chance you have,” while a demand for equity can better be translated as “Give me what you got.”

The latest buzzword appears to be “competitive,” as in “competitive elections.” I first encountered the phrase in an email last week about New Hampshire Republicans’ proposed reorganization of the state’s congressional districts. Judging from that email, I deduce that Democrats intend to exercise reflexive outrage over the proposed new districts because they aren’t “competitive.”

Delving into the state-by-state redistricting required by the 2020 census, which Eric Holder and the Democratic Party are striving to bend their way, I found that “competitive” elections are mentioned frequently. The Hill, a Washington newspaper focusing on national politics, reported that one of the two New Hampshire districts on the new map would be “far less competitive” — but it was referring to District 2, where the new alignment would all but assure today’s Democratic incumbent of re-election for the next decade.

Chris Pappas, U.S. representative from District 1, might stand a fair chance of losing his seat, however, and of course that’s the rub. It isn’t the district that is “less competitive” that Democrats are planning to whine about. Their real objection is the district that might become competitive.

There are, of course, no Democratic complaints about competitive congressional elections in Massachusetts, where that party dominates the legislature and has engineered safe Democratic seats in all nine of its congressional districts. In New Hampshire, meanwhile, the mere prospect of one Democrat having to put up a fight for re-election is enough to make his party cry foul. Democrats have won every House and Senate election since 2016 in a state that Donald Trump lost by barely one-third of 1 percent, yet they consider that indicative of a competitive political environment?

With a profligate Democratic Congress and a doddering president working stubbornly together to steer us into the iceberg, New Hampshire Democrats may soon be grateful for even one safe seat in the U.S. House. As the Concord Monitor noticed recently, our entire congressional delegation solidly supports the Biden agenda, and by next year Granite State Republicans may be kicking themselves for missing a chance to win everything.

Complaints from state Democrats of electoral shenanigans border on hilarious, given the trickery they employed when they held the majority. For the 2016 election, Democratic legislators manipulated residency requirements so out-of-state college students could vote here on the pretense of becoming residents. Then-Gov. Maggie Hassan signed the bill, and that charade put her in the U.S. Senate. On Election Day, about 5,000 students declared they wanted to become residents, and voted, but never followed through on requirements to obtain New Hampshire driver’s licenses and automobile registrations. Those 5,000 fake residents, steeped in repressively Progressive campus climates, would have voted the Democratic ticket with near-unanimity, overcoming Kelly Ayotte’s lead and giving Hassan her 1,000-vote majority.

Some New Hampshire Democrats still pretend that their faux-resident student-voter scam was just a convenience to make it easier for college students to vote, but it’s a convenience offered by no other state that I’m aware of. Their laments at the loss of “competitive congressional elections” smack of the same partisan insincerity.

William Marvel, BA, DHL, SOB, lives in South Conway.

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.