Thursday, November 17, 2016

Post-election ironies


It's ironic that the U.S. Constitution, which should definitely be on the list of the top 10 accomplishments of human history, is simultaneously a beacon of hope and optimism and an embodiment of profound distrust of government and our fellow citizens.  On the one hand, we're the longest-running constitutional republic in the history of the world, our constitution has been used as a model for many newer governments, and under its auspices the U.S. has become the greatest world power.

On the other hand, the constitution sets up an intricate web of separated powers, because the founders were terrified of "tyranny," whatever that means, and saw it as a potential danger in any system where power is concentrated in one place.  So we have power separated vertically, with certain functions delegated to the federal government, others reserved to the states.  We also have power separated horizontally, divided among the three branches of government, with the executive, legislative and judicial each checking the others in an elaborate game of rock, paper, scissors.  The executive can veto laws, the judiciary can rule laws unconstitutional, the executive appoints the judges, the legislative must approve the appointments, the legislative holds the purse strings, etc. etc. etc.

We refuse to trust any single part of the system, an attitude of suspicion that was understandable in light of the oppression and violation of rights that the founders felt from the British Crown in our colonial days.  What is less understandable is that the founders also were deeply suspicious of the people.  If you read The Federalist Papers, the essays urging adoption of the proposed constitution, you keep tripping over discussions of how the populace will be easily inflamed and incited and how we needed mechanisms to make sure that popular voice would be tempered by cooler and smarter heads (read, guys like the founders: elitists, members of the establishment).

Yes, the House of Representatives would be elected every two years, perhaps sweeping hotheads into office, but the Senate would be a counterbalance.  Senators serve for six years, and were not elected by the people until 1913.  (Before that, they were chosen by state legislatures; split up that power!)  And most important, the electoral college was set up as an insulator between the people and the presidency.  The people voted, but their votes didn't count except to choose electors in each state who would actually choose the president.  And the electoral votes were apportioned in a way that gave considerably more clout to the smaller states (small states didn't trust large states; too many of those pesky people).

So fast forward, and although Hillary Clinton received at least a million votes more than Donald Trump, he will become president, courtesy of the electoral college.  Just like Al Gore received half a million more votes than George Bush in 2000, but Bush became president, courtesy of the electoral college, with an assist from the Supreme Court.  Ah, those checks and balances!

I find it ironic that Trump's campaign, which was built so heavily on distrust of the governmental system and its perceived elitism, succeeded solely because of the elitism of our governmental system. And that Trump supporters who professed to want dramatic change voted in exactly the same Congress they had before.

Much like the U.K. with its Brexit vote, I suspect that the U.S. is going to be awash in buyer's remorse in the not-too-distant future.  I suspect a lot of people who voted for third-party candidates "because Trump and Clinton are both rotten" are coming to realize that their votes mattered anyway, and not in the way they intended.  I suspect a lot of voters who held their noses and voted for Trump because they wanted an anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court will realize that's only a tiny bit of what they bargained for and is going to be delivered. I suspect a lot of Republicans who figured the party would come through and keep Trump in check will have second thoughts as more and more mildly or wildly unqualified people are named to his team.  And I suspect a lot of people who didn't bother to vote at all may start regretting that laziness or carelessness.

Found this fortune in my cookie today.  I guess we'll be learning a lot about character in the years ahead.

15 comments:

  1. Just as a factual point, the UK is not awash with buyer's remorse. Brexit? Bring it on! I am not really in a position to comment on the rest of this piece, beyond observing from across the pond, that it is very hard to see what the average poor American voter can possibly have done to be landed with two equally appalling candidates, even if appalling in very different ways. It seems to me your checked and balanced system was not strong enough to protect the ordinary citizen from this Hobson's Choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Karen -- observing from across the pond in the other direction, I read all the Brexit morning-after commentary and learned, for instance, that google searches on "what is Brexit" spiked in the 24 hours following the election. If that has subsided, perhaps the news hasn't reached us yet.

      And as a postscript, most informed voters do not believe the two candidates were "equally appalling." Many voters do not believe one of them was appalling at all. Unfortunately that one lost.

      Delete
  2. Kathleen, would that I could say it as well as you do. I'm 100% with you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love your essays, no matter what the topic. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Love the cookie fortune! What was that Chinese curse - may you live in interesting times! I'm with Irene.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They voted for change and change is what they will get--and then they will regret their vote as so many did with Bush--when they lost their homes and investments. How easy it is to forget what came before. As for Brexit-- they only wanted a closed border--perhaps Mexico would have also built them a wall?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I didn't believe it could happen...I wake up to another nightmare every morning.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I still feel like I've been punched in the gut. It's a sad day in the U.S. and a day that will go down in infamy in our history. The snake oil salesman won by promising things he can't do, and enough people bought it for him to win. The really scary ones are the people who recognized his misogyny, racism, and anti-Muslim stances and agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Kathleen's observations. None of the appointments at this point seem to be any different from the past...and I am totally irked that Trump thinks that he can include his children in his discussions (see Ivanka with the Japanese Prime Minister) even as they will continue to run the Trump companies...Very sad time in the US of A....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes Indeed! We watch with trepidation from afar, here in New Zealand!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting how much agreement there is. Well, me, too! Alas, I am unsure if there will be buyer's remorse. We tend to find facts that suit our preferences. When will we be more open to an accomplished, knowledgeable public servant who happens to be a woman? I was hoping it would happen in my lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I do not feel qualified to comment too much on the US election but I feel that I must correct Karen Robinson. There IS 'buyers' remorse' in the UK &, worse still, we have Nigel Farage being politically reincarnated no end of times & causing mayhem. Additionally, the Leavers wanted to lose by a narrow margin & were horrified when they won. You cannot make it up!
    We await the European elections next year with trepidation & hope that they have learned their lesson from the UK & US.
    On a point of information. Can't Presidents nominate judges to the Supreme Court so is that not separation of the powers? (I am probably wrong)
    On a lighter note, Kathy. I love your blog as it is erudite, sensible & opens eyes to a variety of artists.
    Jenny in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenny -- the president nominates to the Supreme Court, but the Senate must confirm. And to complete the circle, the Supreme Court can rule acts of congress unconstitutional. So each one can top each of the others at one point or another.

      Delete
  12. Agree--thanks for stating it so factually and eloquently

    ReplyDelete