“The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”
Among the concerns Alexander Hamilton expressed regarding democratic government was his suspicion that the general citizens wanted the necessary intelligence and knowledge to choose wisely those who would govern them. He believed that passions could sway people’s minds, distorting their perspectives and perceptions. Therefore, in Federalist 68 he stressed the virtues of the Electoral College (“The Mode of Electing the President”):
“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”
Unfortunately, the 2016 presidential election inverted Hamilton’s logic when Trump won the presidency even though Clinton won the popular vote. By winning the “right” states, Trump benefited from the Electoral College distribution of votes, surpassing the 270 needed to slip into the White House. Hamilton’s wisdom persuaded him that the general population could not be trusted to select a person who is qualified morally and intellectually to assume the momentous task of leading the country. In an ironic reversal of his view, and to the shame of the country, the electors in this case lacked the wisdom to fulfill Hamilton’s ideal, and were unwilling to cast aside the repugnant Trump. Consequently, America has elected someone who embodies none of the eminent characteristics that Hamilton predicted future presidents would have:
“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters preeminent for ability and virtue.”
That Donald Trump is not “endowed with requisite qualifications” for the office he holds has been demonstrated amply by his behavior during the campaign and his thirteen months in office. Early in the campaign, stories of his “relationships” exposed what sort of man he is and should have been enough enough to eliminate him during the primaries.
Additional salacious tales have continued to emerge debasing further any moral authority his presidency might have to dressed him in. The media, for example, have reported Trump’s embarrassingly sleazy relationship with a porn actress, Stormy Daniels. In spite of this disturbing story, friends of mine who voted for Trump still support him. Perhaps presidential sex scandals no longer shock or disturb the public because the nineties inured Americans to sordid conduct through the relentless coverage of Bill Clinton’s disgraceful behavior.
Perhaps Trump’s ranting about the fake media have convinced them too that the news account are indeed false even though The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and numerous other news outlets have extensively documented Trump’s insatiable appetite for extra-marital affairs. The claim that the media is “fake” is absurd and withers immediately once one hears Trump’s own statement (Hollywood Access tape) that he is entitled to grab women wherever and whenever he pleases.
Unlike Trump, my friends who support him, also tell me that Clinton committed his offense in the White House, which seems a sacrilege to them. They further point out Clinton was impeached for perjury and should have been removed from office. I don’t disagree with them; Clinton should have been and was punished for what he did, albeit he finished his term as president. Should not Trump’s frequent infidelities and his bribes (confidentiality agreements) silencing the women with whom he has had affairs also disqualify him to be president? Should not the latest revelation at least change the minds of those who found his language and behavior till now not enough to reject him?
Our Presidents have not always been the most sterling men. Indeed, Hamilton’s expectation of a virtuous president almost seem quaint today and far beyond the reach of our contemporary politicians. Nevertheless, a president should possess at least some modicum of “virtue” inherent in “the distinguished office” of the presidency. Trump’s past years of marauding lasciviousness make clear he views women as objects to gratify his lust. How anyone could continue to support him remains a mystery. Yet I still have hope, if only in knowing that though “they seldom judge or determine right” “The people are turbulent and changing” and in time may choose correctly and revoke their allegiance to such an ugly and contemptible charlatan posing as a politician.
No comments:
Post a Comment