A Clarion Call to American Democracy: 2016 Presidential Elections

A Clarion Call to American Democracy: 2016 Presidential Elections

In light of the wide public dissatisfaction with the U.S. presidential election results, I wrote earlier that when the popular votes and the Electoral College votes do not coincide, public disappointments are the consequence of a general ignorance of the Constitutional mandate. The public is under the impression that they are directly electing a president “of and by the people”, when the reality is that they are voting for the election of a president “of and by” their State. Therefore the president is, de facto, the president of the Union, not of the people. Put in another way, when the majority of individual votes go to one candidate, but the majority of State electors vote for the other candidate, States’ will overrides the people’s will.

Since the election, we observed the transition team’s performance, we can now add to the above observation a new one on the probable shape of the coming administration. The elected president ran a pretentious and cocky campaign disparaging and intimidating some groups, institutions, and persons of the society. The group that considers itself patriotic and “exceptionalist American” related itself to his arrogant, contemptuous, vindictive, and combative character, thus carried the candidate to the office. The rest of the public thought that his attitude was for the campaign, and it might change once he is elected. However, his post-election performance shows that he and his team are not capable of changing from the campaign mode to the presidential mode. Under the circumstances, we may be witnessing a rough and tough business style administration (of which the president- elect is so proud) for the next four years.

An argument advanced by those who voted for the elected president is that it is good to have a businessman in presidency, because he will run the government efficiently and effectively, like running a company. We can leave aside the fact that some businesses are run well some not so well. The proponents of this argument do not seem to be able to distinguish that businesses are run for the benefit of the company, its owner or owners (the interest of the consumer of the service or the product of the company is of secondary concern although businesses deny this aspect), while the government is run solely for the benefit of the people. Businesses also compete with each other, sometimes at a cutthroat rate, without regard to or against the interest of other companies; whereas governments have to compete with each other while having to accept the interests of their counterparts. Furthermore, businesses take risks to the extent of declaring bankruptcy, while governments cannot take risks to run the public coffers dry or to engage the country in wars.

The new administration’s style may be the reflection of the president’s personal character: 1) He applies his own value measures to everything and everybody. He has no reasoned and objective approach to issues. 2) He believes he knows all and better than anyone (like better than generals about the security issues); he cannot accept criticism; if criticized, he considers it as a sign of his failure; he hates to be a loser. Yet, both of these attributes are very unbecoming of an elected public official and may be even dangerous. His headstrong refusal of the intelligence findings about the Russian cyberattack on his opponent’s campaign is an obvious example of these attributes. His team repeatedly stated that the intelligence findings are for casting doubt on his win of the election and for marring his victory. Concern about a clear election victory seems to outweigh the bigger problem of interference by an unfriendly foreign government in the democratic process of the United States. But, how can we forget his call on Russia, during the campaign, to find the allegedly lost e-mails of his opponent.* There is no reason to believe that Russia would not have happily obliged.

Up to this point, we have no indication or encouragement that he will or can divest himself from the combative businessman or self-centered personal style, and don the mantle of a responsible public servant. It may be that he was running for the highest office of the land only to feed his insatiable appetite for publicity, popularity, and success. Once elected, he was surprised as much as anyone else; he was caught unprepared for the seriousness of the national and international responsibility attached to the solemn office. If however his condescending approach to all things is due to a personality that is self-centered, narcissistic, hedonistic, grandiose, superiority complex, no-empathy for others, then we have a problem with a leader with these characteristics. Such leaders in history caused social and political upheavals in their respective societies by recklessly dismantling social and political institutions, and by undoing many social and political contracts, unwritten understandings, and traditions special to that society. This type of leadership in the United States would have serious consequences also for the whole world. Other powers, like China and Russia, who are competitors today, may turn into adversaries tomorrow; the smaller countries may oblige under today’s prevailing conditions, but may not extend a helping hand in times of need in the international forum.

Once instituted in office, the president is joyfully signing several “Executive Orders” or “Memoranda” every day, like a boy in candy store, to overturn previous administration’s Executive Orders. His purpose seems to convey to his supporters the appearance that he is making good on his campaign promises, as if these Orders and Memoranda are “edicts”, for which laws and administrative procedures are to follow suit. This style is reminiscent of Louis XIV’s, who governed with the principle “L’Etat c’est moi”. One example of rushed policy declarations was about the admittance of foreigners and immigrants in the country. As part of this policy, the president did not only act reportedly illegally and caused hardship (may it be temporarily) to many people, he also upset a friendly nation by being rude to its PM on the phone. He says he does not understand why his predecessor agreed to help Australia by taking some of the refugees waiting at the door of Australia. Of course, he does not understand it, he ran a campaign “to make America great again”, not knowing that the U.S. is great because it always offers help to allies and to humanity. Greatness does not necessarily come with show of force, but more so with show of humanity and humility, with moral/ethical greatness.

Another observation is that the President inserts his winning in his speeches on almost every public occasion, still three months after the election, no matter what the occasion or the audience. He also makes the victory gestures with a clinched fist, like a winning boxer in the ring. This is, in fact, a sign of immaturity or of disbelief that he really won. It appears that winning the election is more important for him than having been entrusted the honor and the responsibility of this high office. Winning an election is not for cheer and celebration, it is not a game; it is the appointment to a post of great responsibility from among other candidates, it is serious.

Only democracy itself, often called a good but messy system, may solve the problem it created. The aggressive, brash, disruptive, quarrelsome style of governance may eventually alienate some foreign countries, and some of the president’s supporters that they may not vote for him again! It may be the people’s turn to say, “You are fired”. Then, the United States will be even greater.

January 11, 2017- February 8, 2017 

* Trump asks Russia to find Clinton’s missing emails

by Amy Sherman, Alex Daugherty and Kyra Gurney, July 27, 2016  MiAMI hERALD

In a surprising call for a foreign power to use its hacking abilities to get involved in the U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from the time she was secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said to a room full of TV cameras at Trump National Doral. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Trump said he hopes Russia does have her emails. Clinton’s lawyers had turned over work-related emails, but deleted thousands which she said were about personal matters.

“They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there,” he said. “So let's see.”