In theory, its advocates have argued, democracy is the best system that anyone has ever come up with. But after results like this year, in which Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton â and both of them were extremely unpopular to begin with â it’s important to consider whether it’s really such a good thing to live in a country where anyone can hold tremendous political and military power.
Anyone Can Be President
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
17 Comments. Leave new
Well, this can happen when so much of the nation is tired and angry from endless wars and inequality, and both parties offer candidates that many people do not like. Hillary was a bad choice with little to offer except incrementalism and more of the same. I feel sad that the DNC and media pretty much marginalized Bernie, as I thought he was the better choice, and had better ideas. It is really scary to realize that many good alternative leaders either didn’t want the job or didn’t want the crazy slog uphill to get it .Michael Moore went out into Trumpland and realized what was happening, but too little too late. The whole shebang was crazy from the start, especially the 22 wingnuts from the GOP swamp. I saw on an article on the Internet that asserted that Trump will be advised by Ben Carson now? That is crazy,. This man believes he and Jesus are sauna buddies, and even had a picture painted for him about this.
I have always maintained that the Internet is a Tower of Babel (but good for checking spelling), and whatever people find on it as far as news or advice is extremely suspect, but many people believe the crap that others put up on it. Look at all the useless and wrong polls and punditry on it.
This shows a consequence of the astonishing trust people put into Google:
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/364910-robert-epstein-google-hillary-clinton/
I’ve often thought that politicians should have to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of law (especially Constitutional law) science, math, history, sociology and biology just for starters. The people who should be passing laws about global warming don’t have the background to even understand it.
«I’ve often thought that politicians should have to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of law (especially Constitutional law) science, math, history, sociology and biology just for starters.» And to whom would they demonstrate that knowledge, CrazyH ? Remember those so-called literacy tests in the US South ? As far as I know, Platon’s Πολιτεία (usually, but misleadingly translated into English as The Republic – a less misleading translation would be the The State) is the locus originalis of such ideas, but after his sojourn in Sicily, even Platon, it seems, realised that things were not as simple as he had imagined….
Henri
… aye, there’s the rub.
You wouldn’t want the government to decide who’s allowed to run for office.
That said, one could devise a double blind testing system judged by known experts in the fields. Since the judges wouldn’t know who was responding, they couldn’t show favoritism. (Nor could the math judges see the candidates’ answers on political science.)
An interesting idea, CrazyH. On the other hand, if I had my ‘druthers, I’d first reform the voting system, putting an end to one-man districts and first-past-the-post voting systems. Then I’d close down K Street, rescind Citizens United, and get the big money out of politics. That, I submit would bring a different breed of candidates. In the event that didn’t suffice, then perhaps one could try those judges, under, as you propose, a double-blind system….
Henri
Another problem here regarding expert poll-watchers whose job would be to qualify the franchise … would they be volunteers, or government employees? A major problem with “experts” (especially in the “soft-sciences”) is that their opinions can usually be altered or otherwise soft-peddled to fit the choices of the highest bidder.
What I would much prefer is to see are ballots that offer A last choice of “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” The institution of democracy is not so much about “making the best choice” as it involves a “most popular” involvement in the choices available. The more voter involvement that can be contrived, the more obligated an electorate may feel regarding any “democratic” mandate.
Finally, exactly who would produce any franchise litmus test? In a duopoly such as America’s, that litmus determination is already a part of the system. The .001% choose the top two candidates, and the hoi-polloi can only choose among them.
Ultimately? Trump will get offered a deal by the real PTB that he must live with. Otherwise, heart-attacks for men his age are always just around the corner. Nobody seems to recognize it, but there is a praetorian guard operating out of the White House.
DanD
Reading gocomics, the Clintonbots and the #NeverTrumps keep saying that, as bad as Trump is, not giving 100% support to Hillary is stupid at best and High Treason if a competent court ever heard the case. They blame Trump’s election on the fact that Mr Rall didn’t fully support Secretary Clinton’s campaign.
In fact, Mr Rall has said over and over that both the major candidates would be a disaster, and he saw no reason why Hillary would be a lot better than Trump. He did say she was a little better, but not enough to vote for or support.
Bad as Trump is certain to be, I can’t see any evidence that Hillary would have been any better.
I remember the Three Stooges: an auto da fé is preferable to the guillotine, because a hot stake is better than a cold chop.
«They blame Trump’s election on the fact that Mr Rall didn’t fully support Secretary Clinton’s campaign.» Nah, Michael – everybody know that it was those nasty Russkies wot done it….
Henri
for someone who is so quick to accuse other people of stealing their ideas, it’s kind of weird that you’d use george carlin’s quote without attribution.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98021-in-america-anyone-can-become-president-that-s-the-problem
So pork,
You’re saying that, over the more than 200 years of nation-hood before G. Carlin made that observation, nobody else was insightful enough to also consider those words in that order? “In America, you can be anything you want to be.” That particular sentiment has been around for more than a hundred years.
You see pork, “that’s the problem” … and it ain’t relativity. Simple sayings have many independent sources. George Carlin may have composed that idea independently, but chances are, so did TRall. Otherwise, where’s your evidence that there was any plagarism?
DanD
Have to agree with you here, DanD – those of sufficient age might remember the saying to the effect that FDR proved that someone could be president of the US as many times as he wanted, Harry S Truman proved that anyone could be president of the US, and Dwight David Eisenhower proved that the US didn’t need a president. The idea that Mr Carlin had proprietary rights to that meme – one which I doubt very much that he shared – is as as absurd as Apple’s attempt to design patent a rectangle with rounded corners….
Henri
«What I would much prefer is to see are ballots that offer A last choice of “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” » More effective, I suggest, DanD, would be the alternatives posed by the US Green Party, i e, proportional representation for legislative seats and Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) for chief executive offices like mayor, governor and president and other single-seat elections. I submit that if such regulations were to be enacted – bien sûr, over the dead bodies of the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties -it would lead to a whole new ball game….
Henri
Speaking of «anyone can be president», how does the idea of Michael Richard Pence as US president grab you, no matter what your crotch looks like) ?…
Henri
I believe the Green Party and ALT Lefters like Ted Rall have no agenda except to bring every Democratic candidate down. He and his cronies have successfully helped the GOP to bring down Gore, a leader for the environment, failed to bring down Obama because he was just that good, and successfully helped that pus pocket Trump win because, like the other two, he hates Democrats more than he hates evil. He and his ilk have helped destroy Hillary’s reputation with a death-by-a-thousand-cuts. The woman is a good, hearted, strong, wise, and hard-working woman, one he could never understand in a million years because, like the Green Party, he is just a bomb-throwing anarchists. His cartoons are harsh and uninsightful, not to mention childishly rendered. I would like to (sarcastically) thank him and his Hillary hating fools compatriots for our future loss of Medicare, Obamacare, social security, an uncorrupted judicial system, education, social justice and civil and human rights, and even the post office. Thanks to their nihilist bomb throwing, our government is run by a parade of farting hogs. At least own it.
Poe’s Law? Uncorrupted judicial system?
«The woman is a good, hearted [sic !], strong, wise, and hard-working woman, one he could never understand in a million years because, like the Green Party, he is just a bomb-throwing anarchists [sic !].» I’d never have known, «baddog» – thank you for setting me right with those well-founded (and exquisitely expressed) arguments !… 😉
Henri