Presidential Election 2016 - Beyond Partisanism

First an Introduction to the Doomsday Clock where the scope is the destruction of the planet Earth, not the solar system or galaxy or any of the individual units such as continents or countries.  The concept, defining risk and then using the closeness to midnight as the analogue to such a catastrophe works for other complex systems, as small as a species being made extinct and as large as the universe itself.  

The clock was introduced in 1947 by a group of atomic scientists  when the danger of a thermonuclear exchange would have ended civilization as we know it, and since 2007 has reflected global climate change as a separate but additive risk.  Of course, the accuracy of the clock is beyond objective evaluation, as it’s main value is heuristic,  using this known image of a minute hand approaching midnight to convey a world at risk. 

Let’s see if this works for a country, specifically our own, which has had the major influence on our world over the last century — and also is where most readers of this happen to live. The “end of the world” has its national analogue in what is called “a failed state” usually meaning a lack of effective central government with the unleashing of bestial internecine hobbesian conditions of war of all against all.  

Even after generations of children being indoctrinated by reciting a pledge to “…..a nation indivisible”  this country is held together by the most fragile of bonds,  with greater centrifugal forces than most others.   We were founded by those whose greatest aversion was to a strong central authority, so much so that they provided in their charter a prohibition against the federal government disarming the people.  This charter also protected what was to be the seed of it’s own dissolution, the enshrinement and protection of the institution of Chattel Slavery, treating other humans as property, as mules rather than fellow human beings.  Rather than a nation indivisible, our constitution until the end of the Civil War was a loose agreement by sovereign states who like England this year could have left the Union at will.

The presidential election of 2016 while taking place in a milieu of a high stakes reality show with the country focused on each daily episode of the star performer follows a pattern, first an outrageous statement, then the analysis, then often his reinterpretation of the meaning of what he said.  After at most a hiatus of a few days, this is repeated, along with televised analysis of probabilities and strategies for winning the requisite number of electoral votes for the star performer to become President. 

While the country is focused on this election drama, the national doomsday clock is getting closer to midnight by forces that are ignored since they are reduced to components, demographics of one party or the other, to be analyzed endlessly as if this were a sporting event.  Unlike the Civil War where the one demographic was the elite of the Southern States and the central issue was slavery, at this time there are multiple groups that are on the verge of armed conflict.  What makes this moment in time unique is the individual who has gained the nomination of one of the two major parties of the country, and as such has provided a nucleus for the various forces of discontent to unite.  What is also unique is this individual and his coalition have various degrees of animosity to not only the federal government, but the laws and norms that have allowed it to exist and evolve since the end of the Civil War.  

The very name of this candidate evokes such strong emotions of affiliation or contempt that the individual obfuscates the historic meaning of this election --whether or not he wins.  One key is a statement he proudly made on television,  “I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters.”  Never in this country’s history has a candidate for any major office made such a boast, and more importantly, that it would it be seen as accurate by his supporters.

The perception that this is a variation of previous presidential elections, rather than something quite different is an illusion.  This election is the first stage of the formation of coalitions, more variegated than our Civil War, but with the potential of unleashing internecine divisiveness, that with an armed population could take an unprecedented violent course.  This takes us back to the value of a national Doomsday Clock, just as the world’s version may have alerted us to danger, so to,  one for our country could have the same salubrious effect.   Let’s dispel the idea that we are blessed by God and accept we are only the product of human effort and inspiration and the desire to make our country function, and in doing so advance humanity as much as possible.

As for politic, as a process of dispute resolution it certainly beats escalation, with the danger of the long horrors of revolution.  In any conflict one can choose to sharpen issues or to obfuscate them, to ignore stresses with the hope that they will quietly resolve themselves, with the help of incremental laws that will eventually become social norms or bring the underlying stress to a head.  It could be useful to look at the two candidates as representing these two extremes, which would at least provide a language for discussion.

A parliamentary system of government would allow for this,  as the various groups who want change can, and must, articulate their positions to vie for votes.  While this election is nominally between the traditional two parties, it is really two coalition governments vying to gain power.  The Republican candidate is seen as incoherent as the attempt to reach all the desperate groups requires he presents as a single voice which in a parliamentary system would be articulated by the leaders of various parties in the coalition who are opposed to each the other.  What makes this candidate rare, perhaps unique, is that he has risen to this high candidacy in a realm without the need for political skills or adherence to their norms.  I use the word “political” in the largest sense, which would include those who rise in a corporate business structure, or academia or even to military leadership, where building coalitions is a necessity.

This candidate does have the ability to create his own reality, even his own language with the destruction of the meaning of powerful concept-words such as “founder” “Satire” and concepts such as “Second Amendment Solutions.”  Yet, for his followers this only demonstrates his strength,  his transcending the “mess” of our current civilization he echoes the spiritual, as in Mark 14:58  "We heard Jesus say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple, and in three days I will build another…….”

The Temple is the biblical representation of “The Establishment,” a coherent language and body of laws and norms that surround us.  It provides benefits to those who prosper and pain to those who feel imprisoned by it.  What makes this candidate so rare is that he has no coherent plan, nor does he believe in a spiritual being that will transform the world;  his persona being formed by  his actual father, not being God but a wealthy successful builder who allowed him to feel that he was gifted far beyond his own capacities.  

It would be useful to consider this election, this candidate,  dispassionately, ignoring the individual to look at the revolutionary nature of his proposals, that I will not articulate here.  Most are beyond the authority of the position being contested, but would have the effect of legitimizing them, or if he were to go down in defeat, of further diminishing them in political discourse.  We may be guided by Thomas Jefferson, who was among other achievements a scholar of political philosophy who is well known for this statement from the Monticello website ,  “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”  

The Presidential election of 2016 is a rebellion, whether a little one that he endorses or one that turns out to be the fuse for a big one that he warns agains will be determined by the unknowable nature of history-shaping forces.  Jefferson’s guidance was of a time when the primitive level of technology limited devastation of wars and damage to our planet,  so the concept of a Doomsday clock didn’t apply.  But now it does, for the world and every country, state or ethnicity.  Among the challenges are those of artificial intelligence eliminating the relationship between human effort and reward, which raises issues that we don’t even have the language to address.  But language is all we have, and while we must refine our terms, expand it for discussion of choices that have not had to be made previously, we must defend this tool of civilization from being degraded by the attachment of a partisan tag that arouses visceral emotion that replaces meaning.  

To only focus on the candidates, to root for ours and condemn the other, is a waste of what should be a time for reflection.  Simply demolishing the candidate we oppose is to admit defeat in what should be the ongoing effort to enrich the democratic process.  Our country and the world faces some harsh realities, and the suffering of those of our fellow human beings should not be ignored as we face new challenges.