Volume 11, Issue 23
The arrest of a former President in and of itself is enough to stress the American public. However, general national news analysis of the people’s sentiments finds the public’s mindset confusing. Citizens seem to be expressing emotions that are contradictory.
They are not.
When asked, “Do you believe that Donald Trump should be prosecuted for recently exposed alleged crimes?”, 45% say yes. At the same time when asked, “Do you believe the recent indictment of President Trump is politically motivated?”, an equal percent say yes. Progressives are apoplectic that the public is not in total agreement with their anger towards the former President.
What is going on in the American public’s mind?
Defenders of the former President point out that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered subordinates to take a hammer to BlackBerries and smart phones to destroy any evidence of classified material leaked to unauthorized sources. Further, BleachBit was applied to computer servers in the White House in an effort to wipe clean databases. What was in question was missing emails referring to sensitive government documents. She was never prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
It is possible for someone to believe that a person should be prosecuted for a crime committed and at the same time believe that "selective prosecution" can be prejudicial and discriminatory. The analogy would be two cars speeding on an Interstate. A highway patrolman is only able to catch one. The ticketed speeding driver is prohibited from using the defense that he was only in rhythm with the traffic. The officer has the right to use selective enforcement to make an example of speeding drivers for the purpose of maintaining general public safety. The point being, if you don’t want to be the subject of selective enforcement, don’t break the law. If the officer discriminates on who to pull over based on any reason of bias, then the selective enforcement is deemed unfair.
The public’s conclusion that Donald Trump should be prosecuted for alleged crimes, while at the same time believing that he has been dealt with unfairly, makes perfect sense.
What is amazing about national leaders’ inability to understand the minds and thoughts of average American citizens is their own inability to accept the fact that citizens don’t like them either. Sixty-five percent of the American public does not trust Congress or institutions of authority at the national level. This includes the Department of Justice and the FBI. The same percent does not want either President Biden or former President Trump to be the next President. Congressional leaders, White House officials, and leaders of both political parties are in absolute denial of their own negative standing with the general public. The only framework within which these national leaders can apparently evaluate matters of disparity is through the lens of Republican versus Democrat or Conservative versus Liberal. This is a distorted context. The public is fed up with all of them.
The public is distressed because of a dysfunctional symbiotic relationship with government. People need government. Yet they don’t trust current leaders to be transparent with true intent of application for their agenda. And the people don’t know what to do about it. Each election cycle has not cured their concerns. The litany of issues for which the public demands action is legion. Whether it be the borders, deficits, national defense, education, or health care, elected leaders insinuate insentient callousness toward the people’s will. Citizens feel abandoned by national institutions that pursue a hidden agenda disdainful of the people’s desires.
Psychologically, what do the people want?
Citizens want options, not dictates. They demand that their authority over their own families for critical decisions be respected. In the process of determining the path for their pursuit of happiness, Americans lean toward security versus opportunity. Research conducted by the National Republican Congressional Committee in the early 1990s determined that citizens first desire freedom but in the backdrop of security. They want to be on their own with a lifeline. At that time the American public said, given the option of total freedom with no government protection versus total security with little freedom, two-thirds chose government protection.
The public still struggles today in calibrating the equation of more government vs. less government in determining societal satisfaction. This emotional dilemma will drive the decision-making process in the upcoming presidential election.
The chart below illustrates the breakout of voter opinion in analyzing security versus opportunity. This fulcrum is still the balancing mechanism of how ultimately the electorate will determine their vote for the next President.
The chart below illustrates general voting blocs of Americans in reference to a compendium of issues defining conservative and liberal factions. In the course of American politics, voters will align with candidates on the basic themes that their foundational political views represent.
Voters in the 2024 presidential election cycle will be looking for candidates they can trust who will selflessly, sacrificially, and in absolute servitude, build a relationship with the voter to understand, facilitate, and protect their individual choice for pursuit of happiness.
Candidates seeking office at all levels have the duty and obligation to understand the state of the American mind. And, in running for office, remember…
Their oath to the Constitution simply means serve the people first.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?