Further thoughts on Trump's election - Part 1
Recently, my blog has focused primarily on my cancer. However, I've
written one post
about Trump's victory (http://blog.ethicalmusings.com/2016/11/thoughts-on-trumps-electoral-victory.html).
Consternation over Trump's win seems unabated if not growing. That
consternation has several, not mutually exclusive, causes including:
- Objections that the Electoral College
ignores the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won by almost 3 million
votes
- Fears that the Trump appointees and
policies will trample the rights of women to choose their own healthcare
options, discriminate against the LGBT community, implement initiatives that
worsen climate change and tear down important environmental safeguards,
misunderstand the threats the US faces, favor the rich at the expense of
the poor, etc.
- Anxiety that Trump's win will directly
or even indirectly align itself with a freshly energized white supremacist
movement, further exacerbating racial tensions
- Concerns that Trump's win points toward
a fracturing of the Union, e.g., as liberal, more youthful populations,
who live along the coasts find themselves increasingly alienated from
older, less affluent, less educated, more conservative populations who
live in the nation's broad middle
- Trepidation that Trump's election moves
the US toward an authoritarian dictatorship, a fear heightened by Trump's repeated
and flagrant disregard for facts, the ongoing involvement of his children
in both his business and the government, and his evident reluctance to
step completely aside from his business interests in order to avoid even
the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Each of those five factors merits reflection, which I do in the
remained of this post and my next two Ethical Musings' posts.
- Objections that the Electoral College
ignores the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won by almost 3 million
votes
First, one function of the Electoral College is to prevent a tyranny of
the majority. The substantial disparity between the popular vote and the Electoral
College vote points to a growing divide in the US. A nation so divided will not
long stand. Changing the Constitution is a lengthy, torturous process that
seems unlikely to succeed or, by succeeding, to open the door to further,
perhaps less desirable, changes. Instead, we need to bridge the divide. In 1868,
48% of the US population consisted of farmers; today, less than 2% of the
population engages in farming.
Politics, according to an ancient adage, is the art of compromise. Our political
leaders decreasingly practice that art. Centrists, from both the Republican and
the Democrat party, are opting not to run for re-election, leaving Congress
comprised of politicians opposed to compromising their hard- right or hard-left
principles. The refusal of the Republican dominated Senate to consider
President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court in spite of Obama having more
than nine months left in his term, exemplifies this move away from compromise.
The answer to this problem lies in not in reforming the Electoral
College but in recovering the art of compromise – in terms of a pragmatic ethic
– the ability to get along with one's neighbor while respecting both the
neighbor's dignity and one's own. In resolving conflict, humility requires
acknowledging the possibility that your neighbor, and not you, is correct, or
perhaps the preferred option is a third, as of yet undetermined option.
Comments