Reflections on the US
Presidential Election
The whole world watches the US
presidential election. Most of us watch it begrudgingly, feeling guilty but
compelled to switch to CNN despite the war raging RIGHT NOW in Yemen, Syria and
Iraq. It’s frustrating and addictive and entertaining.
So, what caught my eyes and ears?
The promise and potential of Bernie Sanders; young, female voters turning away
from Clinton and Ted Cruz’s uncanny ability to make everything sound insincere.
If I was alarmed at Donald Trump’s statements, I mostly masked that horror with
laughter and disbelief.
I was buzzing with optimism the
night before the results came out. I was anticipating the presidency of one of
the most qualified people in American history, a woman to boot. I’m a maths
student, so I think in probabilities and possibilities, and on Tuesday night,
Donald Trump felt like neither.
‘T was not to be. How could I
forget that in every multiple choice test I’d ever taken, my attempt to guess
would always result in a confident tick against the wrong answer? But more
importantly, how could Americans give ultimate power to someone who went
against every democratic value that the USA takes immense pride in? The initial
shock of the result gave way for some much-needed recognition of changes within
American society.
What is undeniable is that there
are some serious divides in certain Western societies. There are people who
relish in taking the extreme positions on both sides, but these people lack
introspection, respect and basic listening skills. But there are several
others, who are still in shock but willing to examine the issues for their true
worth, in an objective manner.
I write to understand and come to
terms with this unprecedented result. I write to exercise my right to express my
opinion. I write to find some way to address the future without losing all
perspective.
During his term, Obama promised
Americans that he would improve their lives, but found himself gridlocked in a
majority Republican Senate and House of Representatives with overwhelming
partisan agendas. The US Federal system is designed to prevent the President
from having too much control over the states, yet the people of the country
always blame the President for a bad term. Obama’s internal legacy has impacted
smaller groups of people, precisely because he was up against a Republican
Congress, which would have prevented the passing of bills that would have made
significant changes to the majority, not just the minority (I’m not talking in
racial terms). However, Obama’s external legacy is much greater because the US
President is allowed much more freedom in foreign policy, aspects which the
average American doesn’t have the patience to appreciate [1]. When promises go
unfulfilled, frustration mounts, patience thins. With high economic
dissatisfaction plaguing the country, the candidate of the incumbent party
begins the election season with a clear disadvantage.
Adding to the misunderstanding,
is the wave of “anti-establishment”, “populism” and “post-Brexit” sentiments,
which seemed to be spreading around the Western world. The far-right and the
far-left act as centrifugal forces that push politics to the extremes, making
it infinitely more difficult to focus on the moderate views of the random
voter. The right and left wing of each party consists of definite voters,
encouraging politicians to engage in rhetoric that pleases this cult-like base.
Since the collapse of the economy in 2008, mistrust in politicians and the
ruling party have risen to levels last seen during the Great Depression, before
Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1932 [2]. The US is so vast that we don’t
realise how divided it is. It’s very easy to breed prejudice in a bunch of
people that are not exposed to social and political views that differ from
their own thinking. When ‘post-truth’ is awarded ‘Word of The Year’ by Oxford
Dictionaries, it is a pointed remark about the current global political
structures, which have perhaps forced people to forgo calm rationale for
something much more dangerous; rage, mistrust and a sense of entitlement.
Anti-establishment sentiments are
arguably formed out of agitation and lack of rationality. Most voters wanted
‘change’ but don’t seem to appreciate that someone without any experience in
public service or politics, is unlikely to improve the situation of the
country. We may not like politics, or politicians for that matter, but we must
confront the reality that it takes a great level of knowledge and skill to do
the job that they do. It’s hard to foresee how Donald Trump can “drain the
swamp” if he is embarrassingly outnumbered by Washington “insiders” on the
Senate.
Our impatience and disinterest in
political dialogue acts as a stepping stone for populist ideology, which has
time and time and time again proved to cause more damage than it’s worth. I’m
not claiming that populism undoubtedly spells our doom, but it’s very important
to be frank about the motivations that make populism so popular, so that we can
create an environment where the real concerns can be weeded out from the all
the noisy rhetoric. We need more political engagement than a trip to the
polling booth every four years.
Every political system must have
a scapegoat. The United States of America’s scapegoat is globalisation. It’s
possibly the most irrefutable and simultaneously useless scapegoat to be used. The
world has changed in certain fundamental ways, and reversing this kind of
cross-border dependence is arguably foolish and detrimental to the country’s
future. Globalisation was born in the wake of the Great Depression and two
World Wars, to maintain peace between major political powers by integrating
economies and cultures. It has resulted in the longest duration of peace
between major world powers, and improved economic standings of countries all over
the world. Protectionism is a fantastically misguided sentiment, and the people
that desire it are confusing undesirable economic changes with abrupt social
changes within their society.
[3] A recent article in the New
York Times attributed the decline of influence of The Democratic Party, on the
“identity politics” that they indulge in. The opinion-based article talked
about how “identity politics”, within America, essentially ignores the white
working class and fails to unify Americans as one, and instead focuses on
empowering differences. Funny how it becomes ‘identity politics’ when it
doesn’t involve white people. Funny how the phrase ‘identity politics’ makes
the issues of minority groups seem somehow un-American and exclusive. Concepts like
‘identity politics’, ‘political correctness’ and ‘multiculturalism’ are often
attacked and blamed for issues that can be solved with responsible governance,
education and integration. The undeniable wealth disparity, which is coming
into sharp focus even in well-established economies, has resulted in waves of
frustration. The brunt of the anger is felt by minorities, who are fighting the
same economic and social challenges. Anti-immigration viewpoints are often
misrepresented by the most politically charged voices, who use emotion and
bombastic statements rather than facts to draw support. These speakers draw
their energy from the dissatisfaction of ordinary citizens, and when we lose our
willingness to think critically, we give them the power to exploit us, at no
cost to their own powerful positions.
There is no excuse for bigotry. Despite this, I acknowledge that there was a complex set of factors that
culminated in an angry and resentful electorate casting protest votes against
each other. Additionally, I request Americans to look inward at the forces that
are thriving off the wounds that have been opened from this long and tiresome
election. I completely blame the media
for all the free coverage Donald Trump received for unachievable and divisive
rhetoric, which acted as a perfect smokescreen for the media to avoid
discussing ACTUAL policies and did nothing but legitimise his words. Do we
really need five panellists, across three arguments to tell the viewers that a
‘ban on Muslims’ is a human rights violation? The answer is no, we don’t. But
the more the media discussed it, the more legitimacy they lent to the topic. So
you see, when we see messages on social where people are discussing their fear
for their safety, it’s because the media has publicised and normalised threats
to someone’s human rights.
But the biggest thing lesson I’ve
learnt by following the US Election, is a citizen’s responsibility towards the
democratic system and election processes. Political engagement is vital in
creating a society that listens to, respects and benefits the majority, but
never at the cost of minorities. And it can’t just be limited to elections that
caught someone’s eye. It must be a 24/7 commitment, understanding that building
bridges is infinitely more useful than burning them and engaging with people
with differing views, before we draw unfavourable conclusions about them.
It's time we take responsibility for the way our politics unfolds. The people we give power to, are after all, a reflection of who we are.
Bibliography
[2] Deeply
Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Post-War America: Doug McAdam,
Karina Kloos, Eric Martin, Chapter 1
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Constructive criticism is much appreciated!