We’re in it again, the presidential election season. You might say we’ve been in it for a
while. Yes, people have been running
around the country and saying vote for me for over a year. Trump announced his candidacy a year ago last
June 16th. I maintain that
Clinton has been running for four years.
Evidence? Did you happen to see
the video that was produced when she left the State Department which featured a
long list of foreign leaders who provided testimony as to her effectiveness as secretary? I felt then that she was running for the
highest office in the land. But now we have
entered the time when the average citizen will take note of what is happening
as it pertains to the upcoming election.
The conventions are, for many, the first conscious attention they expend
on the question: whom will I vote for come
November? This election, more than most,
brings to the fore a theme I have been writing about since this blog began in
2010: the upgrade of the natural rights construct as our prominent view of our
government and politics. For those new
to this blog, let me briefly summarize that view.
The natural rights perspective is a view that places its
highest priority on the rights of the individual. This priority is based on a moral claim that
each individual has the right to determine his/her own sense of what is good
and evil, what his/her goals in life should be, and that the government is a
service agency that exists to meet his/her needs in a competitive arena with
other citizens. The only proviso is that
the acts in which one citizen engages do not directly hurt other citizens. For them, this defines liberty. In everyday language, it says “I have a right
to do what I want to do.”
This view of government and politics replaced in the late
1940s a more communal sense, a federalist sense which places much more emphasis
on the communal nature of government and politics. And here, in this election, we have each of
these perspectives being emphasized. As
a matter of fact, this distinction between the two sides is a bit
heightened. It is a distinction in
messaging that I, for one, underestimated.
Apparently, as one of the TV pundits, Michael Steele, pointed out, given
the economic hardships that many Americans are experiencing, their focus is on
their own individual challenges and, in turn, they are looking for a president
who is promising to address those needs and wants. Of course, that refers to Mr. Trump’s
message. On the other hand, we have a candidacy
that is promulgating a “stronger together” theme. The latter message is a more federalist one;
it is more communal. Steele’s point is
that the Clinton campaign is at a disadvantage with this message.
I agree. I generally
agree because of this nation’s proclivity to harbor the natural rights
construct. When confronted with
federalist ideas and ideals, they react, mostly at a subconscious level, with a
sense that what they are hearing is a naïve, soft, unrealistic, and weak
position, a position unviable in an atmosphere when voters are confronted by
such daunting demands. This is
particularly true in states that were at the core of our manufacturing industry
that have lost so many jobs over the last number of decades. Instead, there is a candidate who in message
and in style communicates an image of strength.
That, in a nutshell, is Trump’s advantage especially as it pertains to
the swing states, such as Ohio, in the Midwest.
Does that mean Trump is going to win? No.
There are a lot of factors that go into a campaign. This is something civics teachers should convey
to their students. One problem we have
is that when we are rooting for a particular candidate, we hear what we want to
hear, and when the candidate does not win – if that is the case – a sense of cynicism
is likely to take hold. With cynicism,
legitimacy issues arise. In terms of
this election, one factor affecting the outcome is most citizens’ sense of what
is appropriate behavior and demeanor for an eventual president. In this, Trump has a disadvantage. That is but one factor and there are many
others. But I will be interested in how
an individualist presentation will do in competition with a more communal
presentation. I will not be surprised if
the Clinton side diminishes its communal messaging and hits on another
theme. I remember her husband, in his
run for the presidency, early on used the term, “new federalism.” This was quickly dropped in his campaign. In any event, Betty Davis’s “fasten your
seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night,” is an apt sentiment for the
upcoming campaign for president. I hope
that whoever wins does so in a way that allows him or her to legitimately govern
when the smoke clears.
No comments:
Post a Comment