Does character matter anymore in electing the president of the United States? It certainly did not in this election.
Donald Trump’s stunning upset of Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s presidential election is evidence that people care little about character anymore. Those who voted for Trump care more about acting on their own insecurities or satisfying their own selfish needs: suppressing minorities, rounding up Muslims, turning back the clock to the ’50s, getting a big tax cut, deporting Mexicans who clean houses, mow lawns, or spread hot tar on roofs.
Trump’s sex tape? In this media-saturated world, why, that’s old news, seeing as it happened way back in October. Bigotry, sexual assault, xenophobia, it seems, are no longer a reflection of character and fitness for the highest office in the land. Outrageous behavior has become entertainment for the masses, with audiences expecting new revelations with every news cycle or they grow bored and indifferent.
There is nothing partisan in the observation that Trump is the most reprehensible character ever to win the presidency. Set aside his character flaws for a moment. He has no history of public service at any level at any time in his life. He hasn’t even played a politician on television.
Trump certainly is not the first imperfect character to be elected president, but he is unlike any other in his unapologetic defense of his racial, ethnic and cultural prejudices, his playing the tax code, cheating on his wives, treating other women like meat, and short-changing subcontractors and others in business transactions who are in no position to stand up to a billionaire bully.
Bill Clinton was elected president despite his own penchant for womanizing, as Trump hypocritically reminded us again and again when he could have been talking about himself. It would be ridiculous to compare Clinton to Trump in either comportment, intellect, or commitment to public service.
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, a successful governor of Arkansas, and an articulate, magnetic candidate with a clear agenda to move the country forward. He was presidential material, so voters overlooked his human failings.
Cable television journalists jockeying for ratings helped elect Trump with their wall-to-wall coverage of his candidacy, each outrageous and offensive sound bite building to the next one. There was no space, on stage or on air, for more moderate voices. One by one, Trump’s Republican primary adversaries grew more shrill, yet none could compete with the party’s new fearmonger.
Trump is the closest thing America has seen to a fascist, a nationalist with an uninformed, radical view of the world and an unmistakable authoritarian streak. Lock up Hillary, deport million of Mexicans, ban the entries of millions of Muslims, register Muslim citizens, bomb all our adversaries.
At a microphone or on Twitter, Trump cannot control himself, not his own self-exaggerations or his loathing for anyone who dares to challenge him. Only with the greatest effort were those surrounding Trump able to contain him in the closing days of the campaign. Only by making Trump seem like someone he is not were his handlers able to push him across the finish line to victory, even as he lost the popular vote.
Trump the president-elect is no different than Trump the candidate. President Obama awkwardly grasped for words in calling on all Americans to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. With all due respect, Mr. President, it is Trump who must work to earn our respect. I doubt he can do it. Trump the candidate is a man to fear in the Oval Office. Now more than ever, he needs to be held accountable. Trump denying that he means what he says is not good enough. We do not believe him.
Trump bragging on tape about his perverted delight in openly groping and molesting women and having the power and wealth to do so with impunity stunned the nation — for a couple of weeks. Even after months of Trump 24/7, we were astonished by his off-camera vulgarity. The man who is now president-elect gleefully boasted about trying without success to score a quick ‘f—‘ with a married woman after bribing her with a furniture shopping spree even as his pregnant third wife waited at home.
We know what this says about President-elect Trump. What does it say about us?
Well, looking around Bexar County at the red precincts, it says that our wealthiest residents, the majority of whom voted for Trump, will forgive anything for a good tax break and less regulation of industry. It also says white, Christian voters, both in the suburbs and in the rural reaches of the county, voted for someone who behaves in ways, they believe, will be condemned for eternity in a burning hell. We get that they didn’t like Hillary. But how did born-again voters reconcile a Trump vote with their belief system? Somehow, the readings on Sunday moral compasses read differently on Election Tuesday.
To be fair, those who voted for Hillary Clinton and shed tears at the election of Trump were more than willing to forgive Clinton her own transgressions. Hillary and Bill left the White House millions of dollars in debt in legal fees resulting from his own bad behavior. Yet in a relatively short time period, the Clintons have grown fabulously wealthy with a combined net worth estimated at $111 million. They didn’t do it the old-fashioned way. They peddled influence. Both delivered dozens and dozens of canned speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars and more before audiences that coveted or needed access.
The Clinton Foundation has done incredible work around the world, especially in Africa, in helping to contain AIDS and other diseases, and by helping people few other international organizations or governments have cared to help. But it also is true that the foundation accepted significant contributions from corrupt tyrants. Foundation business was mixed with access to Secretary of State Clinton and the people around her.
Ardent Clinton supporters are guilty of minimizing such behavior. Still, Hillary was eminently more qualified than Trump to serve as president. Her public service résumé is stellar, Benghazi disinformation and private email server hysteria notwithstanding. Her achievements as a woman in a man’s world cannot be underestimated.
No recent presidential contest has seen two less loved or admired candidates than Clinton and Trump, but it is Trump, the unfit candidate from reality television, who will take the oath as the 45th president on Jan. 20, 2017.
He is likely a one-term president. Americans always come to regret the consolidation of power by one political party. We have not seen such one-party domination of the three branches of government and the majority of the statehouses in generations.
The pendulum eventually will swing back the other way. It always does. Until then, to borrow from Hillary, “This is painful, and it’s going to be for a long time,” at least for one side.
So we know what Trump represents. Even those who voted for him know, deep down, that he lacks the character to serve as commander-in-chief.
What does the election say about us, we the voters? The inescapable conclusion is that millions of Americans set aside character as a measure that matters in electing a new president. After four years of Trump, we can hope voters will be ready to restore traditional measures for choosing a president. Character might once again matter, both the character of the candidates and, looking into the mirror, the character of we voters.
Character does matter.
Neither major candidate has good character.
I am certain, absolutely certainly, that much of the electorate voted against rather than for~at an extreme level. This is more on the parties than the voters. Neither should have been put forward. It is time for both major parties to be on the endangered species list.
http://genevievegallaway.com/marfamarfaneverland
Very respectfully, if character mattered for the DNC:
-Clinton never would have been the DNC nominee in the first place.
-Donna Brazile wouldn’t still be the interim DNC chair.
-A significant portion of congress wouldn’t be serving.
If character mattered to the electorate, Jill Stein (the only progressive in the general election) and Gary Johnson would have faired significantly better.
This article, much like what Clinton supporters have done over the past few months, is exactly why a possibly racist reality TV star who once shaved a guy’s head during a WWE Wrestling broadcast is now president.
Though it attempts to point them out, it is still guilty of mitigating her multitude of flaws and committing many of the same disturbing mental gymnastics Clinton supporters seemed to have done to either remain ignorant of the extent of her corruption or apathetic enough about it to vote for her anyway. By that I mean her many Wall Street connections, her involvement or support of every war since the Afghanistan invasion, her continued military support of Qatar and Saudi Arabia as Secretary of State despite acknowledging they were in turn providing aid to ISIS and other extremist factions in Syria, her desire to risk war with Russia over a Syrian no-fly-zone, and much more.
It also significantly undersells the massive corruption within the Clinton Foundation which, as reported, only diverts 10% of its funds to actual charities or philanthropic use while accepting millions from Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and foreign nations like Qatar.
It’s easy to write Trump supporters off as stupid, racist, or foolish. However, for so called progressives in the Democratic Party to do this after this election is a convenient way to ignore much needed self-reflection.
If the DNC hopes to win in 2020, it will have to ask itself the following: How did it so epically blow it against one the most repugnant, vile, stupid, and possibly racist candidates in history? Why did it have such a significant drop off in voter turnout from 2012? What is it that made them so out of touch?
The answer is Hillary Clinton, her litany of non-progressive crony-corporate connections, and the fact she’s never met a war she couldn’t support.
Rigging a primary for someone who is an actual progressive in the next go around will likely yield significantly better results for Democratic leadership.
Very respectfully, if character mattered for the DNC:
-Clinton never would have been the DNC nominee in the first place.
-Donna Brazile wouldn’t still be the interim DNC chair.
-A significant portion of congress wouldn’t be serving.
If character mattered to the electorate, Jill Stein (the only progressive in the general election) and Gary Johnson would have faired significantly better.
This article, much like what Clinton supporters have done over the past few months, is exactly why a possibly racist reality TV star who once shaved a guy’s head during a WWE Wrestling broadcast is now president.
Though it attempts to point them out, it is still guilty of mitigating her multitude of flaws and committing many of the same disturbing mental gymnastics Clinton supporters seemed to have done to either remain ignorant of the extent of her corruption or apathetic enough about it to vote for her anyway. By that I mean her many Wall Street connections, her involvement or support of every war since the Afghanistan invasion, her continued military support of Qatar and Saudi Arabia as Secretary of State despite acknowledging they were in turn providing aid to ISIS and other extremist factions in Syria, her desire to risk war with Russia over a Syrian no-fly-zone, and much more.
It also significantly undersells the massive corruption within the Clinton Foundation which, as reported, only diverts 10% of its funds to actual charities or philanthropic use while accepting millions from Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and foreign nations like Qatar.
It’s easy to write Trump supporters off as stupid, racist, or foolish. However, for so called progressives in the Democratic Party to do this after this election is a convenient way to ignore much needed self-reflection.
If the DNC hopes to win in 2020, it will have to ask itself the following: How did it so epically blow it against one the most repugnant, vile, stupid, and possibly racist candidates in history? Why did it have such a significant drop off in voter turnout from 2012? What is it that made them so out of touch?
The answer is Hillary Clinton, her litany of non-progressive crony-corporate connections, and the fact she’s never met a war she couldn’t support.
Rigging a primary for someone who is an actual progressive in the next go around will likely yield significantly better results for Democratic leadership.
Matt,
I think you need to change the TV channel from Fox News.
Where does this come from: supporters are “…ignorant of the extent of her [Clinton] corruption? Do you even know what she has done to earn this label?
“Her Wall Street connections”? Of my, what a sin.
The Clinton Foundation “…which, as reported, only diverts 10% of its funds to actual charities…” Where was this reported?
You make a really angry argument based on what are probably complete fabrications.
Yes, the DNC blew this election. But at least some of the blame lays with complete fabrications, and then the endless repetition of those fabrications.
The author would do well to read and reflect on “The Future We Want” by Sarah Leonard and Bhaskar Sunkara, because the world he assumes he exists in has changed, big time. From there I recommend he read Thomas Frank’s “Listen Liberal” then take a good hard look in the mirror. It is easy to claim oneself a “progressive” and wax sympathetic to progressive causes, it is quite another to confront ones own biases and limited views – in this case, the belief that meritocracy is a world view that will solve problems, when, in fact, it’s just another vehicle for liberals to engage in incestuous validation instead of risking one’s own perch of comfort for the greater good.
Set aside character? Most Americans detested both candidates for their characters. Clinton is not an example of someone with character (disclaimer: I’m a Bernie supporter).
I disagree that “Those who voted for Trump care more about acting on their own insecurities or satisfying their own selfish needs: suppressing minorities, rounding up Muslims, turning back the clock to the ’50s, getting a big tax cut, deporting Mexicans who clean houses, mow lawns, or spread hot tar on roofs.” I think you’re only looking skin deep (an ugly skin though it may be). The election has stunned us into realizing the breadth of discontent with the establishment, D and R. People in this country are hurting financially more than I thought. It’s not myopic when you can’t make ends meet, it’s survival. So many people just didn’t want more of the same. Hate and fear percolated to the top, but from where we must ask. Why did Hitler percolate to the top? Because Germans were really hurting, and their leadership wasn’t helping them. It’s easy to call people a basket of deplorables, and sneer at them, without examining the phenomenon of Trump for why it came to be.
Yeh…You really have to feel sorry for all those German citizens/deplorables in the 1930s who felt financially deprived, sought salvation in a man like Hitler—who blamed Jews, gays, and other ethnicities for their sorry plight, then participated in, or stood by and did nothing, while these groups were systematically exterminated. SMH
I don’t think it’s helpful to make fun of this topic. I do think it is helpful to analyze why things happen and to learn from previous mistakes.
Poppy Davis, I believe you’re correct about the “breadth of discontent” with both the D and R establishments. However, I also believe that the general discontent with both parties is misguided. I think many folks vote “Republican” because of a belief that the Republican platform will advance selfish personal goals: lower taxes, spread of their own personal religion, maybe economic insecurity. While generally (generally!!!), Democrats want things that benefit all folks, unselfish: clean environment, equal pay, voting for all, etc.
Also, folks that are upset about the economy are MISGUIDED into thinking that the problem is with minorities/immigrants, or that environmental policies hurt the economy, etc. A false narrative has been painted. I think the economy is actually doing well. But it’s not doing well for folks without advanced training/degrees, or if you are not already a millionaire. But Republican policies are not going to fix that. Republican economic policies almost exclusively benefit rich folks or corporations. While at least some of Democratic policies aim to benefit someone other that wealthy people and big corporations. But that message is never mentioned in the Business Section.
The good D versus bad R might be a false dichotomy, or at least simplistic I think. I’m trying to avoid simplistic explanations. Too many facts have dismantled my previous view of our country. I’ve been shocked into taking a closer look. The poor masses voted for revolution, for change, and against the ruling elite. I don’t think we should denegrate them, we should listen to them…understand what is going on outside our bubbles.
My point is that the economy is not doing well for a large group of people in the US…rural communities, the working class, the coal industry…and when you see that you can see how democratic policies have helped the professional class disproportionately.
I’m sorry. Cannot agree with you that “democratic policies” have helped the professional class over rural communities, the working class or the coal industry. The coal industry is a dying industry, whoever is in political power. Rural communities are also dying, but mostly because few people live in rural areas (I think because a whole family is not needed to work a farm because of tractors and other advanced technologies, and because young folks don’t want to live in rural areas where there are no industries or high-wage jobs).
And as far as the working class: It’s employers that don’t pay working class workers higher wages, not democratic policies. I would argue that its Republican policies that actively work to keep working class wages lower.
And you’re correct about the “economy” not helping out low-wage workers. But the “economy” of corporations and big businesses is doing really well. Really well.
The economy that favors big corporations over lower wage workers and small businesses has been steadily tilting since the 1970’s. And it is because of Republican principles, with the help of Democratic legislatures and Bill Clinton, has the tilt favoring corporations/big businesses gone unchecked.
I hope that Trump actually does do something for lower wage workers. Barack Obama has tried. But he was up against both Republicans and Democrats in trying to change the tilt favoring corporations.
Trump’s “promise” to change things and actually help low wage workers will be up against Republican party policy. Plus, Trump is a demi-god that will really challenges the status of the U.S. in the world.
I agree with you. I think we’re basically on the same page.
Good commentary. Character does matter. But it is not helpful to use a different standard to judge Trump and another to judge Hillary–and frankly another standard for third party candidates…which is precisely what the media and some voters did. Now that Trump is president, let’s see if the media will now ask the hard questions and hold those in power’s feet to the fire…or will they continue to give the folks in charge now a free pass for fear of being threatened, or being sued, or losing access, or out of shear bias.
Bob Rivard, A very well written and truthful article. I will not engage in the debate which comes before. I will only say this, we, the anti-Trump people, do not hate or condemn those who voted for him. That is his mentality. We only regret they were conned by his appeal to their fears or just closed their eyes voted for him and hoped. Next time, please, be more thoughtful.