Clinton and Trump Supporters are Equally Foolish.
We just don’t notice because we’re conditioned to find support for Clinton’s problems more culturally acceptable.
People are upset with our political system. The United States is currently buried in social problems and there is a nationwide sense that the federal government has been an active participant in their development. People are disgusted by what often appears to be representatives openly benefitting from those problems at the expense of the public good. We don’t say it enough, but there’s a word for what people are sick of: corruption.
In our political dialogue, we have narrowed our definition of “corruption” to outright “duffle bag of cash” bribery. This prevents us from properly labeling the systemic influence of special interests that places the financial motives of representatives at odds with the interests of the public. Over time these diverging interests have alienated politicians from the people that they serve. A generation of politicians has become increasingly beholden to campaign donors over voters. Meanwhile those voters have become increasingly disengaged from government. These two problems have fed each other for years. Seeing a corrupt, unresponsive government has caused people to look away. In this lack of public scrutiny, special interests have become ever more brazen in their bribery and manipulation.
This corrupt system and its alienation from the public have bred very specific types of politicians. Rather than simply being of the people they serve, politicians have become members of a distinct ruling class who are experts in looking like they are of the people they serve. Preening, stilted, and thoroughly focus grouped, they have mastered the “upright politician” cliche. Their images are carefully managed to combine the dignity of a member of the ruling class with the relatability of the average citizen. Pandering is carefully balanced to appeal to as many groups as possible. They walk a tightrope between voters and donors that makes them seem painfully awkward. Their calculated rhetoric is tailor made to appease a public that, while concerned and well-meaning, is largely disengaged from an intellectual understanding of the issues. They look like what we have been conditioned to think of as a leader. It’s just a “look,” nothing more. Once they assume office, they feed the establishment that has both caused our problems and made government unresponsive to them.
The current system of political theatre and public trust betrayal appears to be unsustainable. This election has shown that the American people are starting to reach a tipping point. On the bright side, people are more aware and engaged than they have been in years. Unfortunately, both major political parties are still making poor choices, though for completely different reasons. As a result, the metrics of our primary process have spit out the two most unpopular general election candidates in living memory.
Trump is a reaction to the problem of unresponsive government. He is a policy outsider who is coarse and politically incorrect. He doesn’t carry himself in the stilted manner the public is accustomed to, and his talking points, though often incoherent and distasteful, are always from his own head, not regurgitated from a script. He is not the solution, but he came out of a primary race where none of the options were a solution. The people who chose him did so because he was the one major candidate in the Republican race who wasn’t institutionally connected to our current problems. They went with an option from outside the systemic rot. The problem is, they chose someone who is outrageously unqualified for the job.
Clinton supporters think of themselves as “smarter” than Trump supporters. Indeed, they are usually more sophisticated and better informed than those backing Trump, but they’re also still thinking inside the box of establishment politics. They’re really just better conditioned to respond to the “presidential facade.” The majority of the country finds that type of “performance” more culturally acceptable than the loose cannon that is Donald Trump. To be sure, that is likely a good thing. It is certainly a safer approach to governance in the era of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, Clinton supporters are still failing to question the institutional structures of our party system that have caused Democratic politicians to be culpable for most of the nation’s economic and social problems. They still don’t engage in enough critical thinking to oppose a candidate who is spoon fed to them by party leadership.
And the Democrats were not without a better choice in this election, the way Republicans were. The Democrats had their own chance to choose a revolutionary who was not part of the systemic rot in Bernie Sanders. He too is an outsider candidate, free from special interest money. Only, unlike Trump, he is intellectually coherent, experienced in government, by all accounts honest, and has a comprehensive policy agenda. He actually has the best general election prospects because of his popularity with independents who have previously been alienated by the Democratic Party. Clinton supporters have rejected him in favor of a polished establishment candidate, who epitomizes the disconnect between the federal government and the public. Bernie may have made the establishment’s rhetoric a shade more populist, but Clinton supporters are still buying into the phony political costume that has dominated politics for the last three decades. In doing so, they are unwittingly siding with the corruption in our political system.
It is clear that Clinton is vastly more “qualified” to be president than Trump. She’s no leader, but she can at least be trusted to maintain a homeostasis that won’t cause a nuclear apocalypse. As faint as that praise may sound, that fact that it potentially differentiates Clinton from Trump is significant. However, when comparing their supporters, one must weigh the options these people were given. Which is more foolish, looking at a list of only bad options and going with the one that is at least unassociated with current political problems, even though he represents an unknown quantity; or having the option of a transformative political figure, whose campaign is devoid of the special interest money, and instead choosing an equivocating special interest candidate wearing the same phony “political mask” as every other establishment politician, who guarantees the perpetuation of status quo? There is no comparing the intelligence or judgement of the two candidates. As for supporters, it looks like a tie.
