Outside of the United States, we consume quite a lot of the news about the misery you seem to be suffering under. I don’t want to pretend I have all the right connotations in all the right places, but I have to admit I think we usually do consume these revelations with a thought about popcorn, in the context of watching a movie about a distant, dystopian, apocalyptic future, with little to no impact on our daily lives.
In a sense, they tell us more about your society than they tell you about your candidates.
I, for one, am confident this “leader of the free world” is going to decline more and more as you struggle to get anything going that might actually matter — whether something absurd or sensible, proposed by whichever future president, pushing whatever agenda — objected to vigorously in your House of Representatives and Senate at the federal, or other sorts of Congresses at the state level, if not vetoed by a Governor, and if not afterward litigated in a crippled Supreme Court of The United States. Popcorn.
These things you’d be trying to get done wouldn’t get done not because they’re the wrong thing to do, but because “it” is not “theirs”, or not “their party’s”, or whatever. That, surely you can agree, is no exemplary leadership of a free world to any actual free world. Popcorn.
Don’t get me wrong — the majority of you seem to have the right mindset. Or, that is to say, the right mindset in my opinion — what works for most if not all is better for me, and what is better for me better work for most if not all. It’s usually sensible, balanced, and mature, and most people seem willing to make a compromise if that compromise allows other people to benefit. But maybe they’re not. I ordered sweet popcorn.
Your and other’s opinions on matters and visions for a future can really easily be something completely different from what other people want or see or prioritize, but a constructive conversation must be had, could have been had, could be had still, even if it ends with agreeing to disagree. In any case you should be able to have faith in your democratic system, and trust that the larger than your chunk of minority opinions, if that is the case, can still be influenced in such way, that a compromise does not spell disaster. From what I’m reading, that faith may no longer be as prevalent. I’ll take the salty popcorn if that’s all you have.
The lack of extent to which a seemingly sensible majority finds opportunity to express itself as such, in that comforting way only sensibility can, though, is mindbogglingly difficult to comprehend.
I come from a world with multi-party systems though, with sometimes 5 parties ending up in government (it is usually 3, sometimes 2), so what do I know, right? In my world, no one candidate for anything gets away with making no compromises with any candidate who has a different view , at all– a force at play well before the election’s ballots are cast. Those that choose to not compromise at all may end up in a position that amounts to having little power, if any at all, at best — albeit they tend to render plenty of news coverage for themselves, giving a new dimension to the term “populist” meaning “populistic”. While you may wish to point out exceptions to this rule, that’s also what they are — exceptions.
It can be understood that people in a civil society would normally be able to deal with any sort of qualified leader getting elected in to any sort of office, while that leader does not embody their own personal favorite policies, and succumb to the (apparent) will of the majority of people.
But that does not seem to be the case any longer, and perhaps has not been for a long time — no longer can society in the United States be referred to as exemplary civil, and neither can its democracy, nor its functioning, be called exemplary. Its politics can no longer be referred to as mature, balanced, or anything else a citizen might look forward to having a vote in. It can be thought of only as right or left, blue or red, outsider or incumbent, lazy or patriotic, progressive or conservative, racist or human, misogynistic or feminist, or whichever two opposites you wish to use. That, simple that, can’t be as constructive to help anyone. At all.
PS: I expect to get either one of two types of comments; one of them constructive, and the other hillaryous, proving my point. Go ahead and make my day.