The lifeline for evidence: Logic, reason and common sense

To the Editor:

Logic is the power of the mind to absorb, process and understand a singular fact, set or pattern, so as to form sound and sensible judgment accordingly.

Reason is the inductive or deductive assessment and methodical examination of asserted fact, according to “strict [historical] principles of validity.”

Common sense is wisdom born of one’s natural ability, subtly acquired through life; to perceive, comprehend and evaluate facts or circumstances, unaccompanied by a high level of knowledge or refinement, so as to render practical, sound and sensible judgement.

When should logic, reason and common sense prevail?

During and following the 2020 presidential election, reports accrued from around the country asserting massive “election irregularities” believed by many to be manifestations of organized voter fraud. The pervasive nature of the suspicion was not based upon the commonality of a myriad of singular cases of fraud as in virtually all U.S. presidential elections; but, more so, the unprecedented seemingly coordinated, collusive and/or surreptitious nature and extent of the “irregularities”. Whether valid, assumed or contrived, collective media reports included but were not limited to, judicial and administrative override of election law without legislative authority; bipartisan concerns over scores of documented voting machine “irregularities” historically and contemporarily, both under congressional scrutiny, civil litigation or otherwise; dropping legitimate voter ID requirements, dropping or diminishing signature verification, massive ballot harvesting, distribution of mail-in ballots by the millions (upon request or not), dropbox issues as to usage and monitoring deficiencies; “shutting down” for dubious reasons, the election day ballot count in the early morning hours that followed, then ostensibly resuming after daylight, claiming nothing untoward occurred in the hours in between; covering the windows of counting facilities with opaque paper or cardboard as tabulation was in progress, refusing facility access to designated election observers who were seemingly perceived not to be of the correct political persuasion; requiring observers (if they were admitted) to stand back from the counting tables at a distance of 30 feet or more, thus preventing meaningful legal observation while purporting to be Covid precautions; ejecting and/or threatening observers with arrest for “election interference” for having verbally challenged in accordance with law, unorthodox counting procedures; dismissive or unexplained pre-dawn arrival of large delivery trucks laden with boxes, bags and/or trash cans full of ballots, including hundreds with no down-ballot entries; ignoring or stalling compliance with election security intervention court orders, extended delays in determination of results, etc.

The more accusations became public, the more aggressive the mainstream media became in declaring the allegations to be false; but, without sound explanation or inference as to how they knew or determined the allegations were untrue. They did however, demand specific evidence of voter fraud, which by itself, would seem a reasonable journalistic strategy. Accusers responded to the media question “What evidence do you have?”, by collectively asserting they had various forms; specifically, eyewitness testimony, affidavits, anecdotal accounts, photos, videos, documentation countering claims of procedural legitimacy, along with a few participant confessions. Typically, the media default “gaslight” response was, “Yeah, but what evidence do you have?”, as if none had ever been offered or mentioned.

Exacerbating the tension, congressional incumbent post-election majority leaders of the same party, had no interest in investigating, nor did the newly led Department of Justice, as if it were some trivial, unworthy and unfounded public affairs advent, yet again, to be dismissed and loudly labeled as “disinformation”.

In addition and under open threat of massive violent rebellion, the rather shocking response of the courts generally, appeared to be to wash their hands of the controversy, frequently declaring “No standing” on the part of plaintiffs; and, dismissing suits, most, without factual review, assessment of substance or evidentiary examination. Broad-based fears arose that massive systemic biased corruption was afoot in conjunction with the perceived threat, that no court, judge or judicial body, was willing to assume the weight of being the person or legal apparatus solely responsible for any disposition mandate, in likely the most controversial presidential election in the history of American politics. That burden came with the apprehension that a consequential decision rendered, could be met by massive civil disorder, intimidation, violence, destruction, and unrestrained retribution, as had been seen in over 500 organized but unrelated riots across the nation in the summer of 2020. Thus, the pervasive public perception was set; but, largely along party lines, (counterintuitive to the bipartisan outrage likely to have been the response just 10 years earlier), each side pointing to some or all of the same set of facts; but, with starkly divergent perspectives and interpretation. To help obviate the conflict, one had to completely ignore certain irregularities and attempt to explain away others, while demands by election defenders mounted, not for probable cause to investigate, but for detailed and absolute proof of fraud, as if anything less were terroristic, insurrectionary and devoid of any justification for inquiry examination or remedial action. In other words, the divergence of viewpoint seemed as blatant as two groups observing a man running out of a bank with a money bag, dropping bills along the way, headed toward a waiting car. One group points it out as a bank robbery demanding investigation, while the other asserts it was simply a hasty but legitimate cash withdrawal, necessary to avoid exposure to Covid. Anyone refusing to acquiesce to the latter view is declared the obvious villain, according to the White House, the DOJ, mainstream media, certain congressional members and political pundits.

Regardless of the nature and content of a fact pattern, all evidence, whether physical or testimonial, necessarily relies upon logic, reason and common sense for its existence; and its purpose, which is to achieve admissibility and provide sound discernible conclusive value. 

In contrast, the prevailing norms of these three interconnected terms are not dependent upon “evidence” to establish their existence or support a conclusion. They are self-evident and carry the greater weight; thus, can themselves, often serve to prove the truth or falsehood of whatever proposition happens to be at hand.

In the American courtroom, the fundamental function is adversarial debate, which by nature, either brings or seeks evidence. It’s the jury members who serve to bring in the logic, reason and common sense necessary to test the validity and veracity of the facts alleged or the evidence presented.

That triad is the lifeline for evidence; the absence of it is the proverbial death knell for the case. In other words, the validity or admissibility of evidence relies upon a foundation of common sense; but, that foundation does not rely upon evidence to prove it exists.

In a cable network news interview circa 2020, pertaining to public concerns over voter fraud, former US Attorney General Bill Barr was asked what evidence he had that would lead to his belief that voter fraud had occurred in the 2020 election. His answer was simply, “I don’t need evidence, I have common sense.” This brings to mind the two men and the (non-biblical) Analogy of the Stone: one man points toward a small rock on the ground and says, “This is a stone”. The other man (the antagonist) says, “What’s your evidence?”

Perhaps a little more common sense, along with logic, reason and greater election security, would benefit all of society; especially those whose confidence in election results has been severely shaken; and sadly, publicly exacerbated by Joe Biden. Whether the result of his having inadvertently but enthusiastically “let the cat out of the bag”; or, the result of some other mental misfire, an October 2020 pre-election video broadcast on cable news features Joe Biden saying of his party, “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics!” . . . . Lest we forget.

The irregularities speak for themselves, as Joe Biden spoke for himself and his party; so, let logic, reason and common sense prevail: assess the facts alleged, reject “a simple gaffe” or take him at his word.

Bud Corbett

Rhinelander