Expert: The United States General Election Exposes the Systemic Faults of American Democracy
This year’s United States presidential primary election process clearly exposed the hypocrisy and limitations of the United States’ democratic electoral system. It has deepened the polarization of the electorate and caused a fracturing of American society.
1. Democratic and Republican Party Leaders Manipulate from Behind the Scenes
The United States presidential election is largely a contest between the candidates of the two major parties. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin; whoever is elected will have to govern within the framework of the American political system. In order to ensure the selection of candidates agreeable to them, party leaders have regulations they can use to manipulate the selection process. If a candidate is unable to gain the support of his or her party leadership, then it is very difficult to get through the primary election process.
From the start of the primary season, the Republican Party establishment had no interest in Donald Trump. When Trump unexpectedly won a series of primary victories, party leadership secretly schemed and tried various tactics to beat him back. Nevertheless, the unconventional Mr. Trump rose in popularity among an electorate dissatisfied with the status quo. The Republican Party knew full well that that the other two candidates were not viable rivals for Trump, yet they persisted in supporting them in a desperate fight against Trump. As long as Trump failed to receive more than half of party delegate votes, party leadership could, according to party rules, carry out a “consultative election” at the Republican National Convention and recommend alternative candidates. The party’s strategy failed: Trump obtained more than half of delegate votes, and was thereby nominated as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate.
However, whether the Republican leadership deigns to help Trump win the final contest will depend on behind-the-scenes exchanges between them and Trump and the shifting of his positions. At the start of his campaign, Trump proposed an increase in taxes on the rich, but the economic plan he proposed after becoming Republican presidential nominee lowers taxes across the board, which accords with the Republican Party’s position on raising taxes for the rich. This change of Trump’s approach deserves careful public scrutiny.
By comparison, the Democratic Party leadership’s manipulation is more secretive. In the midst of the energetic and spirited Democratic National Convention, the WikiLeaks website released tens of thousands of emails sent by the Democratic National Committee during the primary season that exposed the scandal of Democratic Party leadership secretly manipulating the election by actively working against Clinton’s rival Bernie Sanders. In fact, if Clinton could not obtain the votes of the “superdelegates” under the direct control of the Democratic leadership, she would not have received the number of votes required for her to receive the Democratic nomination.
During the time Clinton served as secretary of state, she used a personal email server to conduct public business, violating U.S. State Department policy and seriously risking disclosure of confidential information. Clinton claimed that she had received permission from the relevant authorities within the State Department to use private email for state business, and that the emails so processed did not contain any classified information.
Investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the State Department confirm that Clinton was lying. Her actions had not been approved by anybody, and some of the emails touched on “top secret” documents. Out of partisan interest, President Obama claimed that Clinton was the most suitable person to serve as president, and Vice President Biden stood up to testify of Clinton’s integrity and character. It remains to be seen how “emailgate” will continue to develop.
2. 'Money Politics' Has Become the Incurable Disease of American Elections
Since the Supreme Court eliminated limits to political campaign contributions, more and more money has become involved in American elections, and its influence is growing. American media estimate that this year’s general election will see more money spent than in any prior election. Theoretically speaking, any American can run for president. However, in reality there are only two types of people who can actually get through the process and become president: the economically powerful and wealthy, such as Trump, and people involved in political circles or political elites who obtain the support of moneyed interests and the wealthy, such as Clinton. It is very difficult for candidates who depend on the financial support of grassroots voters, such as Bernie Sanders, to complete the primary process. Further, as soon as a candidate becomes president, favors must be returned, and the president must first consider the interests of corporations and the wealthy when formulating policy, while the interests of the majority of the American electorate are marginalized. Such has become the iron law of American money politics.
3. Neither of the Presidential Candidates Nominated by the Two Parties Has the Approval of a National Majority
As soon as the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees are determined, they are the voters’ only choices, regardless of whether or not they are liked. In the current race, the degree of disapproval for both Trump and Clinton is quite outstanding. In a poll by the Pew Research Center taken from Aug. 9-16, only 27 percent of respondents thought that Trump would be a good or president [“good” or “great” on the poll], while over 70 percent thought he would be a mediocre or terrible president [55 percent “poor” or terrible” and 15 percent “average”]. Only 31 percent thought Clinton would make a good president [“good” or “great”], while 67 percent thought she would be a mediocre or terrible president [22 percent “average” and 45 percent “poor” or “terrible”].
In the midst of this year’s election, some Republican voters dissatisfied with Trump have stated that they will vote for Clinton, and some Democratic voters who dislike Clinton have expressed support for Trump; such is the frustration of the electorate without any alternatives. This April, thousands demonstrated in Washington, D.C., calling for changes in the law to ensure a “free and fair” presidential election and the abolishment of “money politics.” They say that large financial interests and corporations manipulate the government and authority of the United States, marginalizing the interest of ordinary people — that American democracy is in a crisis.
4. Society and Civility Are the Victims of the American Presidential Election’s Ugliness
During the American presidential election, candidates pull out all the stops to defeat their rivals; trading insults, personal attacks, and threats has become commonplace. Past friends morph into sworn enemies during the election, only to return to handshakes and smiles when it is over. This kind of vulgar and hypocritical American-style electoral democracy harms modern civilized society. The American presidential election should be a process of rallying around the “American Dream,” but instead it becomes a battlefield for the fracturing of American society. The development of American electoral democracy seems to have entered a dead end.
Xu Changyin is a researcher at the Xinhua Center for World Affairs Studies.
1. Democratic and Republican Party Leaders Manipulate from Behind the Scenes
The United States presidential election is largely a contest between the candidates of the two major parties. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin; whoever is elected will have to govern within the framework of the American political system. In order to ensure the selection of candidates agreeable to them, party leaders have regulations they can use to manipulate the selection process. If a candidate is unable to gain the support of his or her party leadership, then it is very difficult to get through the primary election process.
From the start of the primary season, the Republican Party establishment had no interest in Donald Trump. When Trump unexpectedly won a series of primary victories, party leadership secretly schemed and tried various tactics to beat him back. Nevertheless, the unconventional Mr. Trump rose in popularity among an electorate dissatisfied with the status quo. The Republican Party knew full well that that the other two candidates were not viable rivals for Trump, yet they persisted in supporting them in a desperate fight against Trump. As long as Trump failed to receive more than half of party delegate votes, party leadership could, according to party rules, carry out a “consultative election” at the Republican National Convention and recommend alternative candidates. The party’s strategy failed: Trump obtained more than half of delegate votes, and was thereby nominated as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate.
However, whether the Republican leadership deigns to help Trump win the final contest will depend on behind-the-scenes exchanges between them and Trump and the shifting of his positions. At the start of his campaign, Trump proposed an increase in taxes on the rich, but the economic plan he proposed after becoming Republican presidential nominee lowers taxes across the board, which accords with the Republican Party’s position on raising taxes for the rich. This change of Trump’s approach deserves careful public scrutiny.
By comparison, the Democratic Party leadership’s manipulation is more secretive. In the midst of the energetic and spirited Democratic National Convention, the WikiLeaks website released tens of thousands of emails sent by the Democratic National Committee during the primary season that exposed the scandal of Democratic Party leadership secretly manipulating the election by actively working against Clinton’s rival Bernie Sanders. In fact, if Clinton could not obtain the votes of the “superdelegates” under the direct control of the Democratic leadership, she would not have received the number of votes required for her to receive the Democratic nomination.
During the time Clinton served as secretary of state, she used a personal email server to conduct public business, violating U.S. State Department policy and seriously risking disclosure of confidential information. Clinton claimed that she had received permission from the relevant authorities within the State Department to use private email for state business, and that the emails so processed did not contain any classified information.
Investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the State Department confirm that Clinton was lying. Her actions had not been approved by anybody, and some of the emails touched on “top secret” documents. Out of partisan interest, President Obama claimed that Clinton was the most suitable person to serve as president, and Vice President Biden stood up to testify of Clinton’s integrity and character. It remains to be seen how “emailgate” will continue to develop.
2. 'Money Politics' Has Become the Incurable Disease of American Elections
Since the Supreme Court eliminated limits to political campaign contributions, more and more money has become involved in American elections, and its influence is growing. American media estimate that this year’s general election will see more money spent than in any prior election. Theoretically speaking, any American can run for president. However, in reality there are only two types of people who can actually get through the process and become president: the economically powerful and wealthy, such as Trump, and people involved in political circles or political elites who obtain the support of moneyed interests and the wealthy, such as Clinton. It is very difficult for candidates who depend on the financial support of grassroots voters, such as Bernie Sanders, to complete the primary process. Further, as soon as a candidate becomes president, favors must be returned, and the president must first consider the interests of corporations and the wealthy when formulating policy, while the interests of the majority of the American electorate are marginalized. Such has become the iron law of American money politics.
3. Neither of the Presidential Candidates Nominated by the Two Parties Has the Approval of a National Majority
As soon as the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees are determined, they are the voters’ only choices, regardless of whether or not they are liked. In the current race, the degree of disapproval for both Trump and Clinton is quite outstanding. In a poll by the Pew Research Center taken from Aug. 9-16, only 27 percent of respondents thought that Trump would be a good or president [“good” or “great” on the poll], while over 70 percent thought he would be a mediocre or terrible president [55 percent “poor” or terrible” and 15 percent “average”]. Only 31 percent thought Clinton would make a good president [“good” or “great”], while 67 percent thought she would be a mediocre or terrible president [22 percent “average” and 45 percent “poor” or “terrible”].
In the midst of this year’s election, some Republican voters dissatisfied with Trump have stated that they will vote for Clinton, and some Democratic voters who dislike Clinton have expressed support for Trump; such is the frustration of the electorate without any alternatives. This April, thousands demonstrated in Washington, D.C., calling for changes in the law to ensure a “free and fair” presidential election and the abolishment of “money politics.” They say that large financial interests and corporations manipulate the government and authority of the United States, marginalizing the interest of ordinary people — that American democracy is in a crisis.
4. Society and Civility Are the Victims of the American Presidential Election’s Ugliness
During the American presidential election, candidates pull out all the stops to defeat their rivals; trading insults, personal attacks, and threats has become commonplace. Past friends morph into sworn enemies during the election, only to return to handshakes and smiles when it is over. This kind of vulgar and hypocritical American-style electoral democracy harms modern civilized society. The American presidential election should be a process of rallying around the “American Dream,” but instead it becomes a battlefield for the fracturing of American society. The development of American electoral democracy seems to have entered a dead end.
Xu Changyin is a researcher at the Xinhua Center for World Affairs Studies.
Previous article![]( "A Liar and a Drunk Uncle")
