The 2016 Presidential Election (Thoughts)
I don't particularly like talking politics, it's too inflammatory, but sometimes you have to say something...
I don't know if writing/rambling some of this will help me get it out of my head or not. I'd really like to reduce the amount of headspace taken up by politics currently. I felt overdosed on it for the 2016 election cycle perhaps a year ago. It's just been so much, and everywhere. Yesterday, I felt a bit shell-shocked by the election. Now I'm moving on to acceptance.
I'm only a little surprised, honestly - and only that because just about every poll source was off. Polls aside, though, it was at least 12 years ago that it became clear to me the USA is very polarized about some things, particularly presidents. And it was back in high school (when our student council president won after giving a speech that entirely consisted of referencing a Nintendo commercial of the time, as his name was Mario) that I decided politics was largely a popularity game. It's not even necessarily about likeability or respectability. It's certainly not about qualifications. It's about popularity. And Trump, with his grandstanding, was so in everyone's face that it was perhaps unavoidable.
Am I worried about what might happen over the next few years with Trump at the helm and a Republican-majority Legislature? Yes, a little. I don't think it'll spell the doom of the country, though. I have a little more faith than that, for as pessimistic as I am.
But, I am worried.
I'm worried of the zealotry on both sides of the political aisle. It's easy to preach freedom and things like "peaceful transition of power." But if you genuinely believe in that, you have to respect the freedom of others and you have to be able to accept losing. Your have to allow someone else to have a voice, even when they say things you don't agree with. That's not easy. People are out there protesting a perfectly legal vote - and while I can sort of understand where they're coming from, I can't say I approve.
But... I'm also worried because there are a lot of people out there (approaching 50% of voting Americans) who I can't really grasp the mindset of. I really try to be able to understand others, but I have trouble envisioning how someone could look at the two main candidates and choose the way they did. Is it because his vague, unbelievable claims didn't seem so unbelievable? Do a few mistakes somehow overshadow years and years of applicable experience? Is the desire to "stick it to the Man" so great that somehow electing a rich, self-interested businessman over a politician seems like a way to change a system that's regularly accused of using politicians to serve rich, self-interested businessmen? Is political correctness so wearying that it seems better to vote for someone who has been spouting insulting, degrading rhetoric for over a year? None of that really makes sense to me, but there are clearly enough people who bought in that we are where we are. I accept that. What bothers me is how it means there's half the nation or so that I don't, and perhaps can't, understand.
But then, a lot of people forget: the President of the United States of American is not a position that is designed as a representative of the people. Nor is that position directly elected by the people of the country. It's something that didn't really click fully for me until I went to Washington DC, I'm sorry to say. The POTUS is a representative of the States. He (so far) is elected by the States. If the position represented the people, we'd go by the popular vote, but that's not the case. We would be closer to that if more states divided their electoral votes down by population, but even that wouldn't be absolute and I suspect many states are reluctant to go that route because it would be seen as watering down their influence. Most states are all-or-nothing sorts of deals and, especially with larger places like Florida, that attracts candidate attention and gives them leverage they wouldn't overwise have.
The other aspect I find troubling in all this is it's probably the first time I really started asking myself, "This country is so divided, could it split? Should it split?" I don't really see a violent revolution as an option, but the question is still worrisome. Partly, that's because one of the biggest divisions in our society politically falls across an urban/rural line, and that isn't as easily divided as North and South. There's no "good" geographical split to separate factions. You'd have two (or more) nations overlaying the same general space. That's messy and baaad, as I think anyone with even passing knowledge of the Israel-Palestine situation can say.
Personally, I find I wish we could put aside state divisions some. I wish the POTUS was elected by popular vote as a representative of the people. I'm not so idealistic as to think that will happen soon or easily, if at all. I understand that states have varying concerns. As do counties, towns, and individuals. Breaking down those borders doesn't come easily, and in many ways it's a miracle things work as well as they do.
But perhaps the thing that worries me most about this election is the precedent it may be setting. If someone who is more reality TV star than politician can sweep through to the highest office in the land by spending months and months on aggressive, vitriolic attacks in spite of pretty much everyone's predictions, does that mean someone will follow suit next time? And the time after? Are we going to be bombarded for two years in advance of the election? Three? Everyone agrees this was an ugly race, but the real question in my mind is whether it's a sign of things to come...
I don't know if writing/rambling some of this will help me get it out of my head or not. I'd really like to reduce the amount of headspace taken up by politics currently. I felt overdosed on it for the 2016 election cycle perhaps a year ago. It's just been so much, and everywhere. Yesterday, I felt a bit shell-shocked by the election. Now I'm moving on to acceptance.
I'm only a little surprised, honestly - and only that because just about every poll source was off. Polls aside, though, it was at least 12 years ago that it became clear to me the USA is very polarized about some things, particularly presidents. And it was back in high school (when our student council president won after giving a speech that entirely consisted of referencing a Nintendo commercial of the time, as his name was Mario) that I decided politics was largely a popularity game. It's not even necessarily about likeability or respectability. It's certainly not about qualifications. It's about popularity. And Trump, with his grandstanding, was so in everyone's face that it was perhaps unavoidable.
Am I worried about what might happen over the next few years with Trump at the helm and a Republican-majority Legislature? Yes, a little. I don't think it'll spell the doom of the country, though. I have a little more faith than that, for as pessimistic as I am.
But, I am worried.
I'm worried of the zealotry on both sides of the political aisle. It's easy to preach freedom and things like "peaceful transition of power." But if you genuinely believe in that, you have to respect the freedom of others and you have to be able to accept losing. Your have to allow someone else to have a voice, even when they say things you don't agree with. That's not easy. People are out there protesting a perfectly legal vote - and while I can sort of understand where they're coming from, I can't say I approve.
But... I'm also worried because there are a lot of people out there (approaching 50% of voting Americans) who I can't really grasp the mindset of. I really try to be able to understand others, but I have trouble envisioning how someone could look at the two main candidates and choose the way they did. Is it because his vague, unbelievable claims didn't seem so unbelievable? Do a few mistakes somehow overshadow years and years of applicable experience? Is the desire to "stick it to the Man" so great that somehow electing a rich, self-interested businessman over a politician seems like a way to change a system that's regularly accused of using politicians to serve rich, self-interested businessmen? Is political correctness so wearying that it seems better to vote for someone who has been spouting insulting, degrading rhetoric for over a year? None of that really makes sense to me, but there are clearly enough people who bought in that we are where we are. I accept that. What bothers me is how it means there's half the nation or so that I don't, and perhaps can't, understand.
But then, a lot of people forget: the President of the United States of American is not a position that is designed as a representative of the people. Nor is that position directly elected by the people of the country. It's something that didn't really click fully for me until I went to Washington DC, I'm sorry to say. The POTUS is a representative of the States. He (so far) is elected by the States. If the position represented the people, we'd go by the popular vote, but that's not the case. We would be closer to that if more states divided their electoral votes down by population, but even that wouldn't be absolute and I suspect many states are reluctant to go that route because it would be seen as watering down their influence. Most states are all-or-nothing sorts of deals and, especially with larger places like Florida, that attracts candidate attention and gives them leverage they wouldn't overwise have.
The other aspect I find troubling in all this is it's probably the first time I really started asking myself, "This country is so divided, could it split? Should it split?" I don't really see a violent revolution as an option, but the question is still worrisome. Partly, that's because one of the biggest divisions in our society politically falls across an urban/rural line, and that isn't as easily divided as North and South. There's no "good" geographical split to separate factions. You'd have two (or more) nations overlaying the same general space. That's messy and baaad, as I think anyone with even passing knowledge of the Israel-Palestine situation can say.
Personally, I find I wish we could put aside state divisions some. I wish the POTUS was elected by popular vote as a representative of the people. I'm not so idealistic as to think that will happen soon or easily, if at all. I understand that states have varying concerns. As do counties, towns, and individuals. Breaking down those borders doesn't come easily, and in many ways it's a miracle things work as well as they do.
But perhaps the thing that worries me most about this election is the precedent it may be setting. If someone who is more reality TV star than politician can sweep through to the highest office in the land by spending months and months on aggressive, vitriolic attacks in spite of pretty much everyone's predictions, does that mean someone will follow suit next time? And the time after? Are we going to be bombarded for two years in advance of the election? Three? Everyone agrees this was an ugly race, but the real question in my mind is whether it's a sign of things to come...
Comments
Post a Comment