I Take Responsibility for Trump

I did not take seriously the possibility of someone so obviously unfit, unqualified, and unbelievable. I dismissed out of hand, denied with disdain, and scoffed with self-satisfaction. I did not consider for a moment that a great number of people could be swayed by their own disaffected frustration with the way things are. I was as lulled into complacency as so many privileged citizens have been. It is still unthinkable to me that this terrible individual had a chance of being given such a position. He is so demonstrably incapable of the dignity, restraint, and consideration required to be a leader. I look at him still and see the opposite of nearly all attributes that make a person fit for an elected office, let alone one at such a level. I put his chances of success on par with the possibility of Mickey Mouse being elected.

To be clear, these are not excuses. I am not asking for mercy for my error, and I fully recognize that I will be paying a price for my pride. No, this is to explicate my own responsibility and demonstrate how I missed all the opportunities to prevent this travesty. Instead, I should have been making efforts to talk with those individuals who were accepting and supporting the messages that Trump-the-candidate was spouting. It is not in my power to change DNC/RNC policies, I cannot lobby or buy media time, nor can I influence large number of people at rallies. However, I can reach out and build relationships with those who believe differently than I do.

In this way, most of all, is how I failed. I believe it is because we don't have good relations and strong, mutual respect for "others" that people like Trump succeed. Those "divisions" allow us to be steered like cattle by persuasive personalities. I use scare quotes because those words are artificial constructs and the emphasis denotes how they don't fit in reality. Lately, and with tremendous effort, I have begun looking for positive outcomes. In this case I have hopes that there may be some yet.

I cannot ignore this situation, and hope that no one else is able to, as well. I have been shaken from my complacency, and I hope that everyone else is also. I realize that things can truly be worse, and believe that others want that not to happen. We can come together, and need to more than ever.

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.

Buying Votes, Version 4.1

To me history is fascinating.  I paid especial attention in school to the part about voting because it was a concrete example of what people will do for power.  It used to be that citizens could get paid for "voting early and often" by candidates and political parties.  There have been numerous attempts in various forms to keep certain categories of voters from participating in elections.  From exclusion to poll taxes and tests to simply standing outside polling places with baseball bats, intimidation both subtle and violent has been used. I contend that the same sort of tactics are being used in modern (within the past decade) elections. Nowadays, it's just a matter of keeping the money "in the family" and "paying" election officials, voting software companies, the media, and courts to get the desired outcome.  Am I comparing the U.S. government to the mafia?  Not entirely.  In this one way I am drawing a parallel between organised crime families and the major political parties.  Not intentionally, mind you, since I didn't even notice that similarity until just now.  Just as gangs originally formed to protect newcomers and minorities from attack, the U.S. government was formed to protect all citizens from all threats internal and external. On a side note, that's a pretty big job: "all" of the people and "all" the threats.  Can government protect citizens from themselves, their own ignorance and greed?  Gangs went bad and turned into mobs, instead of protecting community from actual threats they created extortion rackets; the U.S. government has been twisted in a similar way, it no longer looks to protect and improve the lives of citizens but merely to maintain the control it has established.  It is the intention of groups seeking power to use whatever means deemed necessary to both gain and maintain the appearance of that power/control.  Notice that I placed a couple of conditions in that last statement: "deemed" and "appearance".  It is not unavoidably necessary to use force to achieve a goal, rather it is a choice based on personal disposition.  Then, even after sacrificing honour and respectability, those who bully are not "in charge", they simply have a tenuous agreement with others that those people will do what the bully says and the bully will not hurt them overly much. What this points to is the same answer in each case: the others standing up to the bully.  This does not necessarily mean a violent clash or even dramatics, only that those people stand together and make it clear to the bully that their days of being bullied are over.  Admittedly, the difficulty in making this point is that I'm painting with a broad brush and not defining which politicians or parts of the government are being used to these ends.  It is a large topic to explore and I'm essentially introducing it here and leaving refinement and definition for later.


In closing, what I've brought up is that it is still not, "one person, one vote" but instead "one dollar, one vote".  This is an application of the golden rule of: he who has the gold makes the rules.