The Numbing Election
Before radio waves vibrated in Calvin Coolidge’s 1924 campaign, voters had scarce knowledge of candidates in presidential elections. Despite the limited communications, only a few presidents of the United States (POTUS) were disasters and most were acceptable. The rapid growth of communications brought the faces and words of candidates into everyone’s living rooms; it did not improve the selection of chief executives who moved into the White House living room. The assortment remained the same — a few great, most acceptable, and some sub-standard presidents.
Donald trump is the only elected president who never held public office or any office, including a military post, that served the American public. The only offices where Trump sat comfortably were in offices that served Donald Trump. Usually, if someone seeks guidance and authority, whether it is for medical, legal, educational, or money matters, the sought authority has experience, expertise, education, and works in the particular field. Because POTUS handles almost all our problems, it seems logical for the public to demand he/she has the background to guide us. Choosing someone with nil qualifications is dangerous, but not unique. Many people believe going to a doctor makes them sicker and putting life in the hands of a lawyer increases emptying the wallet and complicating legal problems. Evidently, a great portion of the American public neither trusts the education system that prepares graduates for government service nor the institutions in which they operate.
Trump’s lack of government service before seeking the highest position is an incomplete story. In fairness to Donald Trump, he has engaged in politics for decades, several times making official runs for the presidency, and has knowledge and opinions on domestic and foreign issues and policies. He has extensive experience and accomplishments in business, finance, legal issues, and entertainment; knows how to “wheel and deal,” how to “lead and bleed,” how to “hire and fire,” how to “lie and mystify,“ and how to “hustle and muscle,” all characteristics of a smooth politician. Trump is not smooth, his politics are described by one adjective, an overused word that has made headlines and may decide the election ─ garbage ─ Trump is a master of “garbage politics.”
It is a mystery how an inexperienced political person of Trump’s indecent, mendacious, demagogic, and contemptuous character could obtain the nomination over a host of dedicated, recognized, and well-established Republicans. Could it be that Trump arrived upon the scene at an opportune moment? After the dismal performance and multitude of failures of the George W. Bush administration and the inability of conventional Republicans, John McCain and Mitt Romney, to regain the presidency, the Party faithful recognized that the Party that began with Abraham Lincoln, had faded with George W. Bush, and saw its last gasp with Mitt Romney. In 2016, their Republican Party could no longer win elections. Those who disdained the neoliberalism of the Democratic Party, those who saw godliness in the Democratic Party, those who felt the Democratic Party had pandered to non-white minorities and marginalized white majorities, and Republican leaders who believed, “winning was not everything, it was the only thing,” sought elsewhere. They scorned the leadership. Trump’s degradations, insults, and rants pleased them ─ the previous leaders had it coming.
Maybe winning the Republican nomination over disciplined, dedicated, accepted, and performing Republicans, who had recognition, such as John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindall, is explained by, “Failure has no redemption.” How did Trump then go on and win the election? He didn’t; Hillary Clinton ran an insulting and dismal campaign and lost an election most any recognized Democrat would have won.
By normal political measures, a healthy President Joe Biden could have easily defeated former President Donald Trump in the coming election. A healthy Biden already beat Trump in the previous election and had an administration featuring low unemployment, a decent economy, no catastrophes, and foreign policy initiatives, which may have disturbed a portion of the electorate but were acceptable to the masses. The inflation was a hand-me-down from the excessive spending and Federal Reserve easy money policies during Trump’s administration. Besides, the president has little control of inflation and reality is that it has subsided. Many positives and few negatives for a previously chosen Biden.
By normal political measures, Trump would have lost heavily to a healthy Biden. He had already lost once, had nothing new to show that improved his image, and had January 6, 2021 and a number of legal cases to dampen enthusiasm for him. His rhetoric has become more vile, more disturbing, and more mendacious. Continuous references to the “stolen election,” are effectively challenged, so why does Trump continue with the blasphemy? This author has previously shown that it is impossible to manipulate many votes in a national election. Can’t understand why the articulation of electoral security has never been used to stop Trump’s implausible claim of having won the election? Many negatives and no positives for a previously rejected Trump.
Historians have added an exclamation to a healthy Biden’s superiority to a disturbing Trump. In a survey of 154 members of the American Political Science Association, in which respondents graded U.S. presidents on 10 characteristics — administrative skills, moral authority, economic management, and others — President Joe Biden was ranked a high 14th, and former President Donald Trump was ranked 45th, placing him as the worst president in U.S. history. What more is needed to steer voters away from Trump? Aren’t historian opinions worth something in shaping minds and decisions?
Despite the large discrepancy between a successful Joe Biden and a failed Donald Trump, the ex-president managed to remain in contention, even when Biden still had his faculties. After Biden retired, Trump suffered a temporary setback to Kamala Harris, the new face on the block. A few days before election, “Harris and Trump are tied at 48% in the latest nationwide TIPP Tracking Poll.” How can this be? Kamala Harris may not be all the voters want as president, but she is heir to a successful presidency and has not exhibited any deep negatives. Two suggested reasons for this anomaly.
Harris has a nervous smile and lacks charisma. Trump, with all his bloating and gloating, has charisma; the charisma of a demagogue. Americans are attracted to the sensational, to the charismatic, no matter the types of sensation and charisma. All publicity, good or bad, leads to product identification, and is helpful. Product Trump knows how to make the front page and generate publicity.
Elon Musk has been a crucial factor in reenergizing the Trump campaign. Musk has huge success, not only as a successful entrepreneur, but as a man of vision. He is admired by the American public. If he sees Trump as a viable candidate to whom he is willing to give his attachment, then the public might conclude that Trump has more to his persona than is apparent. If Elon Musk is going to be a part of a Trump administration, which does not seem possible when considering the magnitude of the efforts he must give to his precarious commercial endeavors, voters may feel that Trump deserves a vote.
As we enter the final days of a close presidential campaign, it is foolish to predict the outcome. Polls, pundits, and momentums indicate it will be tough sledding for Kamala Harris.
This would be a powerful and cogent piece in other circumstances. But in order to view it as such, it is necessary to pretend that an intentional, and intentionally barbaric genocide such as we have not seen since the Holocaust is not taking place. Is not funded and enabled by Biden and Harris and would not be continued by Trump. Political discourse is, more often than not, predicated on a game of 'let's pretend' with respect to those issues that detract from the argument for or against a political candidate, party or philosophy. Let's pretend that there is not some glaring hole, some serious crime, some horrific history or consequence shadowing the person, policy or agenda to which we subscribe. Let's look at the 'other guy' for those demerits instead.
This time, what you are doing here is unconscionable. You are not alone but that changes the gravity of your crime - and it is a crime in international law - not at all. To draw a veil cross participation in genocide is to enable it. Any media is as much bound by the imperative *not* to enable genocide as state officials and individuals. So for those who require it to be simple:
The evidence of deliberate, intentional, intensely cruel genocide against the Palestinian people is problematic only in that there is too much it to permit a full hearing of each of its component crimes;
The evidence of crimes against humanity and of violations of humanitarian law is on public display, every day.
The requirement of the peremptory norms of international law and specifically those established from Nuremberg to the UN Charter are beyond dispute and available for you to reference yourself.
This election is not, as others may have been, a matter of personal opinion. You may not endorse genocide or any candidate who endorses, is participating in or has committed to participating in genocide. OR who is likely to meet those criteria.
The responsibility we all have at this moment is to do whatever is in our power to halt the mass murder taking place in Palestine. That is internationals law. If you normalise those who are participating in and enabling those crimes, if you assist them to continue to participate by cloaking their crimes, you become an accomplice.
AS it turns out, the 'numbing election' is precisely the right title - you and are others writing in the vein are numbing the electorate to the immediate and only test of our humanity, of 'the rules based order' and of our future as people of conscience. You can and must address this.