The United States: Democracy in Distress
The second debate between U.S. presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (Democrat) and Donald Trump (Republican) took place last Tuesday evening in St. Louis, Missouri. More than just an exhibition of their two contrasting personalities, it was a chilling demonstration of the lack of substance, frivolity and even vulgarity that have come to characterize our northern neighbor’s political system. With hardly a mention of their proposals for governing the nation — only a few predictable slogans — the two presidential hopefuls squared off in a personal battle of slurs, gossip and even threats of criminal prosecution (by Trump against Clinton). They put on a show that was even more appalling than their first meeting in New York on Sept. 26.
Once again, it was clear that the former secretary of state has an interventionist and warlike mentality, and a huge capacity for rationalizing her own mistakes and lapses. However, she also has an organized political mind, and broad experience both with political power and in what are commonly referred to as boardrooms. For his part, the tycoon made his umpteenth display of intolerance, dialectical incompetence, phobic extremism, ignorance and demagoguery, which adds up to the most dangerous personality seen in a presidential contender in decades, or maybe across all of U.S. history.
But beyond the personalities, the second debate leaves us with an obvious question: How did the country that considers itself the shining example of democracy in the world come to such ideological desolation? It’s scandalous, to say the least, that the U.S. presidency, an office that carries such overwhelming responsibilities — decisions about the use of the nuclear button, for one — and that is so important to the world, should be contested not on the basis of comparing international and national or political, economic and social programs but by an exchange of accusations in misogynistic terms (repugnant, really) and by the use (clearly inappropriate) of an email server, and by allegations of financial and fiscal mismanagement by both candidates.
The excessive pursuit of profits by the companies controlling the news media, especially television, has played a major role in the extreme trivialization of politics, as could be seen on Sunday night. This phenomenon, while not limited to the United States, has acquired a tragic dimension there. A concern that has been repeated over and over again has to do exclusively with the Republican presidential hopeful: just weeks from the election, it’s still amazing that someone like Donald Trump has succeeded in getting so far on such an outrageous platform.
In this respect, the unavoidable conclusion is that his platform, rudimentary, fear-ridden and violent, is satisfying, rewarding and reassuring to a larger number of U.S. citizens than might be expected. It is clear, furthermore, that in spite of the dozens of leaders, legislators and prominent figures in the Republican Party who have weighed in at the last minute, that that organization hasn’t been up to the task of stopping the unexpected rise of the New York businessman. In Trump’s racism, his misogyny, his coarseness and his ignorance — characteristics for which he has been known for a long time — the Party found nothing incompatible with its platform and ideology.
What is most mind-boggling, in short, is that although the odds the Republicans will win the election are be dwindling day by day, Trump is a valid candidate within the terms of reference of this political system. And he represents a type that is attractive to an important sector of the U.S. electorate.
Once again, it was clear that the former secretary of state has an interventionist and warlike mentality, and a huge capacity for rationalizing her own mistakes and lapses. However, she also has an organized political mind, and broad experience both with political power and in what are commonly referred to as boardrooms. For his part, the tycoon made his umpteenth display of intolerance, dialectical incompetence, phobic extremism, ignorance and demagoguery, which adds up to the most dangerous personality seen in a presidential contender in decades, or maybe across all of U.S. history.
But beyond the personalities, the second debate leaves us with an obvious question: How did the country that considers itself the shining example of democracy in the world come to such ideological desolation? It’s scandalous, to say the least, that the U.S. presidency, an office that carries such overwhelming responsibilities — decisions about the use of the nuclear button, for one — and that is so important to the world, should be contested not on the basis of comparing international and national or political, economic and social programs but by an exchange of accusations in misogynistic terms (repugnant, really) and by the use (clearly inappropriate) of an email server, and by allegations of financial and fiscal mismanagement by both candidates.
The excessive pursuit of profits by the companies controlling the news media, especially television, has played a major role in the extreme trivialization of politics, as could be seen on Sunday night. This phenomenon, while not limited to the United States, has acquired a tragic dimension there. A concern that has been repeated over and over again has to do exclusively with the Republican presidential hopeful: just weeks from the election, it’s still amazing that someone like Donald Trump has succeeded in getting so far on such an outrageous platform.
In this respect, the unavoidable conclusion is that his platform, rudimentary, fear-ridden and violent, is satisfying, rewarding and reassuring to a larger number of U.S. citizens than might be expected. It is clear, furthermore, that in spite of the dozens of leaders, legislators and prominent figures in the Republican Party who have weighed in at the last minute, that that organization hasn’t been up to the task of stopping the unexpected rise of the New York businessman. In Trump’s racism, his misogyny, his coarseness and his ignorance — characteristics for which he has been known for a long time — the Party found nothing incompatible with its platform and ideology.
What is most mind-boggling, in short, is that although the odds the Republicans will win the election are be dwindling day by day, Trump is a valid candidate within the terms of reference of this political system. And he represents a type that is attractive to an important sector of the U.S. electorate.
Previous article![]( "The US Economic Reality Is Brighter Than It’s Perceived")
