Everyone can see how strong the political currents are flowing today; our president can’t even tell kids to stay in school without a major brouhaha in the media and among the American people. But why this upsurge in political activism and outrage?
It’s easy to make ignorant speculations without really knowing anything (RACISM!), but a little bit of context makes it clear that the answer goes deeper than one president’s skin. In fact, one doesn’t have to look too far to find a president as politically contentious as our 44th president… just look at our 43rd.
Hypothetical
—————————————————————————————————
Country U is politically divided, roughly 50%-50%, between two political parties, D and R. Party R is able to gets its nominated candidate for the presidency, W, elected. W has an active presidency: war is declared, government size and importance is increased, and a major shift in the government’s role occurs (W decided the government should be a transparent vehicle for cronyism, good man that he is). Party D is outraged at W’s heavy-handed, unilateral actions. W is hated, insulted, spit on, and called a traitor who should be impeached from office. W serves out two terms before party D’s candidate, O, wins the presidency and takes over.
With poetic symmetry, both presidents (W right as his term ends, and O just as his begins) pass legislation to give wealthy bankers in failing institutions billions of dollars.
O begins an active presidency: the wars continue, reforms are proposed, government size and importance are increased, and a major shift in the government’s role occurs (O decided government should be a vehicle for national property redistribution, good man that he is). Party R is outraged at O’s heavy-handed, unilateral actions. O is hated, insulted, spit upon, and called a terrorist who should be impeached from office.
—————————————————————————————————
Two presidents, one from each of the two relevant political parties, are elected in succession. The American public reacts the same way to both, the only difference being the people doing the criticizing (and that’s determined largely by a simple matter of who a person chooses to identify with personally). The half of the populace which chooses to identify with the “winning” side is silent or at best dismissive of their opponents. The other side expresses persistent outrage.
With an outsider’s perspective it becomes clear that the problem is less likely to be with particular political figures and more likely to be with long-term trends in the office of the presidency and the government itself (which is why that’s the non-partisan position I’ve consistently held).
I’m pretty sure there was once a time when people didn’t have to gather in groups of thousands of people (whether war protests or “tea parties”) to impotently wave signs around in order to get the people making major decisions about their lives to stop and listen for a minute. Most of those decisions were being made at a much more local level- now the federal juggernaut makes most of the important decisions and we can merely stand by and watch it happen. No wonder people (people who don’t consider themselves “winners” in the short-term political scene) are getting outraged at the government’s actions.
Small government: don’t react ideologically. Rather, act logically.