Volume 5, Issue 8
In recent history following such a divisive campaign, Americans continued to debate the issues, but acquiesced to the results of the election. They then recognized the authority of the new President to lead. President Barack Obama faced continued political opposition on policy. Most opponents, however, recognized his authority to implement policy. In the case of Donald J. Trump, the divisions wrought by the 2016 election continue to engulf the emotions of all protestors. Their perspectives are expanded beyond the election to impact governing and the implementation of policy.
NBC News reports:
If it's beginning to feel like protests are happening every day of the week, that's because they are.
The first two months of 2017 have been jammed with one protest march after another, and for many newly-christened activists, the hours in between are spent calling elected officials and obsessively reading news updates.
This week is no different. Thursday's "Day Without An Immigrant" saw rallies and marches nationwide, followed by Friday's "General Strike" in over 100 cities.
On Saturday, President Trump's Florida campaign rally was met with protests, and thousands attended a Muslim solidarity rally in New York.
No new legislation has been enacted. President Trump’s Executive Orders have been an attempt to fulfill promises he made during the campaign. Opponents of President Trump are attempting to deny him the recognition of the 2016 election, and therefore his authority to lead.
Statecraft is defined by Dictionary.com as the art of government and diplomacy. It further describes this art of statecraft as requiring “imagination, guided by two convictions: one, that the world ‘made safe for diversity’ must insure the coexistence, not only of rival social systems, but also of multiple, freely defined national interests; two, that whatever frustrations a great power experiences daily in attempts at control, the way it behaves still shapes the behavior of others.”
A government, to morally execute statecraft, mandates a responsible electorate to work with
the government to achieve moral balance between competing interests. This is especially true of a democracy.
Last Saturday night, President Trump addressed a rally of supporters in Florida. People stood in line for hours to attend. The scene was reminiscent of a 2016 campaign event. The crowd was supportive, endearing, and ebullient during the President’s remarks. It is very unusual, if not unprecedented, to observe a society in constant protest while an equally large segment is supportive of a leader for which the protests were rendered.
We find ourselves at a place in American history where a divided public continues to pursue disparate agendas beyond the election cycle to the collective perspectives expanded. We as the public are not currently participating in democracy from differing viewpoints respecting the founding principles that define us as Americans. Instead, we are pursuing agendas unrelated and untethered to any common goal or purpose of liberty for all. Without accepting the compromise of the ballot box, and refusing to recognize the legitimacy of a democratic election, we tread down a perilous path of national destruction. It may seem too simple to quote the rallying cry of the thirteen colonies, “United we stand, divided we fall.” But it is not too simple.
The national news media is now claiming they are being persecuted. President Trump tweeted that the media is now the enemy of the American people. The media’s reaction has been one of
childish hypocrisy. They whine, advancing the proposition that President Trump has gone too far. By crossing this hypothetical line, they claim he is showing the signs of a dictator.
Really?!?
This is a national press who literally called Donald Trump every name in the book printable during the campaign. They even not so subtly referenced his policies as dangerously Hitlerian. President Trump hits back, and now they exemplify the same sensitivity to criticism that they assign to the President.
How soon we forget the term ‘muckraker.” It was a term used by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 to demean the press in their relentless attacks on his presidency. This antagonistic relationship between the press and the presidency is not new in American politics. It actually goes back as far as Thomas Jefferson who at one time said the press cannot be believed. His pronouncement sounds eerily like the statement ‘fake news.’ Donald Trump’s newest attack may be walking on the edge of political civility, but the national press’s complaint that they are being abused takes the concept of a double standard to a new height.
With what should the press be concerned?
They should be concerned with illuminating the truth as derived by the implementation of democracy through the perspective wisdom of the people. Now the press simply pursues their own bias and agenda, assuming in their superior intellect that they are right. The media exacerbates division by never ventilating principles and always deifying process. Process is the emotion of the policy impacting a group of people. Principle is the greater cause of unification centered on the eternal ideals of liberty.
The national news media fails to ask the question, “How do we unite as Americans?” They play into the hands of those who seek to divide society by identity politics. We never hear the media pursue dialogue of a discussion about the differences in policy tied to the same principle. Just once, it would be helpful if they would attempt to diffuse the intensity of the debate by asking the simple question, “If a particular policy were implemented from any competing point of view, how would it result in liberty and freedom for the individuals of both opposing factions?”
Not practical today? Revisit The Federalist Papers and the writings of James Madison.
In the various letters of The Federalist Papers, James Madison and others encountered this very same fearful division of our country and addressed it in support of the Constitution through the concept that united we stand, divided we fall. The moral and economic differences between the state of New York and the state of South Carolina were as great in 1787, in comparison, as our moral and economic issues are today. Yet they ratified the Constitution to become one in principle. The political leaders of the day explored principles of unity without abandoning their individual political views on implementing policy.
Pursuing process only, for the advocacy of a divisive political view, without relating it to the inclusive cultural identity of the country, reduces the process itself to the ultimate goal.
Process is in the eye of the beholder. Principle is the conviction of one’s soul.
The world, led by the United States, is in transition. Changing business as usual brings great anxiety for those who are dependent upon the existing structure of treaties, government programs, and economic support. Many will adhere to business as usual, even though it is failing to meet their objectives.
Fear of change, unchallenged, can result in a greater emotional force than hope.
How this plays out depends upon what each division of society holds forth for their ultimate authority. My thoughts on this will be in Part Two of this two-part series next week.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I think.
What do you think?