The Tragedy of Hope

In the current preparations for the U.S. Presidential Election, there are a number of contradictions. There is the near–incessant coverage of an avowed "non-politician", leaving The Republican Party in a state of disarray. On the other hand (read: political party), there are two actual politicians: one established (even entrenched) and traditional, while the other is painted as a radical and a Populist. In this, the more information technologies change - from printed handbills to electronic tweets - the more political discussion stays the same. Rampant are labeling, nit-picking, 'washing' of many types (where motives are assigned, denigrated, and questioned), blaming, straw-man arguments, and supposedly clever insults instead of honest, substantial discourse. Alternatively, given the two "disruptive" candidates, one might expect the natural results to be inevitable change and hope for the future. However, those who look at history could recognize a consistency with the pattern of previous elections.

Both Bernard Sanders and Donald Trump are very popular, if only within limited demographics. I will leave Trump, as others seem obsessed with analyzing that issue. Instead, I'll offer a view on Sanders. One problem is the contradiction that in order to be elected president, he needs to have been elected already. Which is to say, the conditions necessary for the election of a Populist, non-establishment candidate require significant changes to electoral policies that only a Populist, non-establishment elected official would enact. An alternative prerequisite would be for citizens to approach politics, government, and elections quite differently. Currently, there exists a "one and done" attitude, whereby citizens vote in elections and consider their participation complete.

I suggest this is the illusion of involvement - a version of the ball-and-cups or "shell game" - and more is required. By calling a vote 'the franchise', it sets up certain expectations. Disenfranchisement becomes the focus: the idea that those who are kept from voting are the only ones impacted and by ensuring their ability to vote the problem is solved. Instead, by changing the focus and shifting the discussion to actual issues, by admitting that voters are not being represented (because both the influence of money in politics and the electoral college), by demanding a better-educated and better-informed citizenry, by allowing citizens time to study and consider as well as participate, and having expectations of consensus from discussions, we could begin to affect the political landscape. Even this modest list could seem overwhelming, therefor easier to just focus on 'the right to vote'.

At a time when it is controversial or novel to say "I represent all constituents, not just those who voted for me," it becomes clear how removed the political system is from the necessities of a Representative Democracy. Whether valid or not, the perception that money is the only avenue to influence politics dis-empowers the majority. If citizens instead believed that their representatives listened and acted no matter their wealth, background, beliefs, etc., it would be much different political discourse.

None of this is to say our situation is hopeless, rather that the focus of hope is misplaced. It is too easy to fall into disillusionment, cynicism, and despair by pinning one's hopes on one candidate or election. There is also an expectation of having an endpoint, a destination, rather than this being a process that requires ongoing dialogue and revision. The way of change is sustained effort over long periods of time, which require movements rather than just candidates.