The European press has been having a heyday with headlines that deride the astonishing political divide that has resulted from Trump’s Presidency.
London’s Daily Mail declared that it was a clown-like way to run a country and that the US was going to become the laughing stock of the world. Die Presse in Vienna declared that America under President Trump was more reminiscent of what one expects from a “Banana Republic” than from the “country that claims to be the mother of all democracies.” Rome’s La Repubblica called it a “comedy of errors,” Il Corriere della Sera entitled one of its editorials “The Great Impotence,” and the Guardian echoed its Viennese counterpart with its own thinly-veiled counterfeit of “Trump’s Banana Republic.”
Europeans love an opportunity to make fun of Americans. However, humor and envy aside, the more serious editorialists get beyond the catchy headlines that sell their newspapers. Several “journalists” at the Guardian have argued that the United States should enact direct elections for the Presidency. It’s been over a year since the elections, and European news outlets staffed by Monarchial subjects are still trying to tell American citizens how our votes should be cast.
Some of our own elected officials, like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, decry the need to “scrap this system” that allows the fate of our nation to hang in suspense over an “arcane electoral system.” This is more a criticism of a system that permits each State to play a prominent role in choosing their President.
What they fail to mention, is that if we scrapped the electoral college, elections would be decided by New York, Texas and California, not the United States of America. The framers believed that all States mattered, empowering them with equal status in the Senate regardless of population.
Of all the opinions that I have heard and editorials that I have read, it is that written by Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, which most thoroughly examines all the consequences of the entanglement in which we find ourselves.
On the one hand, he reminds us that a “scorched-earth strategy of winning the election at all costs could be too much for the Nation to endure.”
On the other, he recalls:
As a people who celebrate voting rights as the cornerstone of democracy worldwide, we can ill afford to dismiss a bit of disenfranchisement here and there as par for the course.
He concludes by warning that notwithstanding everyone’s desire for closure and a name and face for the new American president, “the price of a premature closure might be a cloud of illegitimacy that we would long regret.”
We are living in a very special moment in our country’s history. A nation-wide lesson in civic responsibility is taking place that is without precedence and it’s up to every citizen to take a stand according to his or her own convictions. More Americans are questioning the authenticity of media narratives, and vetting the stories reported by newspapers and cable news conglomerates. Some call it “red-pilled,” I, for one, believe it’s the rest of America finally catching on to what former Congressman Ron Paul has been saying for years. Perhaps we should rename it the “Ron pill.”
My question is now as it was before President Trump’s election. Why did it take so many years for the greatest nation on earth to come up with a candidate with the capability to inspire? The answer came quickly in a conversation with a friend and publisher in Washington. After last year’s charade of public scrutiny of the private life of our country’s first citizen, what “good” man would be willing to risk the raking of himself and his family over the coals of such dissection? Indeed, every detail of Donald Trump’s life, from his golfing to his caloric intake is inspected under a microscope that few would turn upon themselves.