A House Divided

It’s rather ironic that Hilary should run for president as a liberal and Trump as a conservative, for it’s really the opposite. Trump’s claim to the oval is based on radical, system-overturning proposals of re-defining foreign policy, immigration, and the general idea of returning us to an isolationist country. Hilary, on the other hand, has positioned herself as the defender of the status quo — continue Obamacare, don’t shake up immigration, and generally keep things the way they are. By any objective political definition Hilary more or less appeals to the conservative right, and Trump the radical left.

So where does this leave the average voter?

For me, the most interesting facet of this race is that while it’s been so polarising, and both candidates are almost universally panned by all but their most ardent supporters, no one’s stepped in to fill the tremendous gap that now exists between them: the general candidate.

It is remarkable that despite so much dissatisfaction, the calls for someone — anyone — besides the choices the public has been offered have gone unanswered, leaving the average voter left to pick between the lesser of two evils. It’s made this election determined by whom people dislike most, not whom they agree with. This is an indication of just how broken our system is. It’s a problem with the political infrastructure of the country that shoulders the ultimate blame for our state of divisiveness, and why we have the two most hated candidates in over 30 years. That problem is called the American two-party system.

When our democracy was in its infancy and Jefferson and Adams were first cementing the practice of using parties in government, the Presidency was open to anyone. Things like four-way races were not only common, but expected, for at that time the idea of a ticket didn’t exist. The candidate who finished second became the Vice President, was left to mend relations with his boss, and spent most of his term contemplating what exactly his job was (something it’s worth noting that we still haven’t entirely figured out).

It’s hard for us to remember, because it’s in living memory of few, but there was once a time when you would vote for people, not parties. You would evaluate who made the best speeches, whose charismatic gusto or innovative ideas compelled you most, and choose whom you thought would best serve as the shepherd of the country. Your identification with a party was loose; almost no one agreed on a specific set of policies their party stood for. Logic and interest in the common good of the nation was for a long time the ultimate guidance for not only whom to vote for, but how to treat those you didn’t. Different ideas were respected, even if opposed, and while rhetoric from both sides might have been heated, it is a modern phenomenon that hate — real, genuine hate — would actually be felt towards the other party’s candidate by the common people. For any democracy, hate is a very dangerous thing.

There were thoughts, when the Internet first came about, that it would become the great unifier of humanity. People thought that the ability to connect with someone at a moment’s notice and access to infinite information would lead to even greater understanding and empathy for one another. That’s what was thought. In reality, it isolated people’s thoughts and opinions to an extent that had never been seen before. Mark Manson, an excellent blogger, wrote an article about living in an age of outrage. It points out that by giving us access to unlimited knowledge and connectivity, we as humans will inevitably use this to only further close off our minds.

We’ll read articles and talk with others who only share our opinions, or anonymously spread hate or bigotry to untold numbers of readers. We can now exist in a virtual world where we don’t have to see or hear anyone whose opinions cause us disquiet; leaving us to think that only our opinions are right, and brood in irritation that people who don’t share them are allowed to exist. And when candidates with such opposing views run for the Presidency, well, the reactions from the general public are far from understanding.