We’ve approached dangerous territory in the history of our nation, and we are at a crossroads which may forevermore shape our country and our future.
I’m not talking about Trump’s victory. This is not a liberal diatribe, as I consider myself a centrist, and while Trump supporters have a field day in trolling my posts with relentless passion, so do liberals who called me out for my few posts which questioned Hillary’s candidacy, likely inspired, in part, by the spread of fake news and leaked true information which found its way into public hands thanks to foreign governments that may or may not have been aided by a then presidential nominee and future Presidential elect.
They teach us history in school because we’re supposed to learn from past mistakes so we do not replay the same downfalls of our own nations. “History” seems so far removed from the present yet people at any given time as masses had similar desires, instincts, and Achilles Heels. But we are failing to examine the past in light of our future, thinking we are better than once-great nations that have fallen, that we can decide what is real and isn’t despite scientific proof — that we can decide what we want to believe is real and what isn’t.
This is a bipartisan issue. Of course, the right wing folks will come out blazing saying I’m a “sore loser,” that I “can’t get over” Hillary’s loss. And the left will say that I’m not liberal enough, that I cannot question what the DNC may have done to throw another candidate under the bus because they didn’t think he could win — that in a year perhaps more important than ever they may have forced the run of a candidate, or at least aided in ensuring the capture of nomination, by hurting the other candidate’s chances, and instead helped put a candidate in play against someone who seemed all but surely beatable, and lost.
But this information only came to light due to a likely international agency, likely Russia, hacking unsecure servers of at least one candidate, and using this information against her to ensure that she would go from sure-thing to long shot running against a man who the polls said had next to no shot of winning. And, sure enough, Trump won the electoral college and will be our President for at least the next four years. He did win the election, and he was able to get enough people to vote for him in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida to defeat Clinton.
What we are incapable of doing at this moment as a society is removing Clinton from our conversations entirely and observing Trump as a stand-alone phenomenon. My husband pointed out a brilliant post on Reddit which explained that Trump’s marketing is leveraging heavily from Putin’s propaganda, which is to make sure that everything is possible and nothing can be fully believed. The term FAKE NEWS appeared for about two weeks to describe another phenomenon of this election — the rapid growth of sites designed to print “news” that was actually entirely made up — these sites looked like news sites, but were entirely false and designed just to get clicks and ad traffic. Due to the desire to be extremely profitable, these pages did not shy away from controversial matter.
What is horrifying is that Donald Trump has turned this term into a weapon of its own — in a press conference calling out CNN as the creator of “Fake News,” which, of course, isn’t the same Fake News that we were talking about just weeks prior. However, news agencies are also at a crossroads, with the rise of digital and “anyone-can-publish” platforms, they are under a great deal of pressure to drive clicks and ad revenue. News organizations are, for the most part, morally obliged to reporting only factual data, and editors go to great lengths to ensure journalistic integrity. However, publications and news agencies also have the unfortunate reality of being boxed into “right” or “left” wing sources. If a news agency has an agenda — whether that be social rights or conservative Christian values — how can it be entirely unbiased? Even if the news reported is entirely true, the selection of coverage is slanted based on the publication’s general views.
It certainly doesn’t help, then, which publications run unsubstantiated reports in their entirety, and allow the public to make up their mind about the veracity of their contents.
Is this “fake news?”
Reporters have always struggled with how much information to reveal and who to trust in their reporting. Many credible sources just are unable to provide their names publicly as they risk execution by opposing parties, if not jail in light of leaks that come out of intelligence agencies before reports are ready. A reporter may have a completely trust-worthy source and information which she feels must be published, and simultaneously be under pressure to publish “scoops” — i.e., be the first to publish this information — which drives both money-generating eyeballs and reputation-building brownie points in the news industry.
This is not the same fake news that plagued the election, and it isn’t even fake news at all. But the way Buzzfeed went about publishing the report, and the way the media is covering it with such conviction yet noted that the report is “unsubstantiated,” undercuts their trustworthiness as a source from the masses.
If we the people cannot trust the media, the only true independent agencies checking and balancing our politicians (not just Trump), and our politicians pit media agencies against each other for reporting on anything slightly negative about their administration, or largely negative in reporting on credibly sourced evidence in unethical or potentially illegal behavior, there is no one left to trust to provide information of what is actually going on. Our blind spot grows until the power of the government is so huge that we may find Democracy itself at risk — and at this point, the masses may have agreed that Democracy isn’t so promising after all.
Of course, Trump-supporting conservatives see this as a diatribe against him, but it isn’t. It is an analysis of his success and how other politicians from past societies have rose to power with little regard for law or ethics and instead found their power in making their societies paranoid that there is no one to trust but the great leader himself.
Rome fell, not overnight, but after many years as a largely successful Republic. For many years, Rome was ruled by Senate, not emperor. The Republic was around for 500 years before it fell — to put this in context, America is a very young nation, and has only been around for 241. Power-hungry Julius Caesar came around and turned the Republic into an Empire, taking over as permanent leader of the country. His focus was on building his brand and power, putting his face on coins while he was still alive, and giving power to Military leaders who he respected, or, who likely, supported him in his quest for power, in order to have a seat at the table. Dismantling the Republic is said to have largely initiated Rome’s downfall.
In Russia, an empire’s rise is history alive and well today, with Vladimir Putin, elected President from 2000–2008, being re-elected to the presidency in 2012. He was elected by only 53% of the vote in his first term, promising both political and economic reforms. After his first four years in office, his protégé Dmitry Medvedev, became president. Medvedev immediately put Putin back into a seat of power, appointing him as prime minister. After Medvedev completed one term, Putin managed to change law in order to be elected again for his third term.
Putin is worth $40 billion, Trump, $3.7 billion (according to Forbes, despite Trump’s claims that he is worth $10 billion — in marketing we’d round up to $5 billion, in politics they round up to $10.) Putin is far richer and more powerful than Trump is today, and his meddling in the US elections should put us on alert, regardless of party affiliation. And, even if Trump is not working with Putin in any unethical way, he has made it clear that he admires his style of leadership. This is not surprising, given that Trump during the campaign slept with a volume of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside. This is not to say that he supports the politics of either Putin or Hitler, but that he sought to emulate their rise to power in order to become President. He may have himself believed this is a long shot at first, but as he continued to follow this strategy he saw how effective it was. He may very well believe that he will do good for the country, and he may believe that in order to do this bending the law a bit here and there is required. This is the benefit-of-the-doubt mindset which I approach his new presidency — cautiously and with eyes wide open, but also waiting to see his plays to determine if he can effectively help “the people,” or if his actions only help the ultra-rich.
Opinions of Putin today are much like those of Trump — his fervid supporters say he has made Russia Strong Again, whereas those who care for social rights see him as a fascist dictator who rules by fear and fighting the media who may paint him in a particularly unflattering light. For instance, the country recently moved to decriminalize domestic violence, as a wife’s submission to her husband is part of the Russian way, and a little beating is perfectly acceptable. One could imagine there are many households in the US which feel the same way.
The fear, however, should not be on any one specific law passing, but instead a larger transition of our democracy. What is to stop Trump by pulling a Putin in eight years to maintain power and to make it possible to remain President-elect indefinitely? He already is ignoring nepotism laws by appointing his Son-in-Law to a prominent White House position, he sees no need to put his businesses into a true blind trust (which may not really be possible given his brand name is all over most of them), and he clearly believes in pushing the law as hard as he can until it breaks. He knows that his Republican Congress will have his back, unless something extremely horrible comes to light.
As we look to our future as a nation, let us not forget that we are a young country, and we are not immune to what has befallen great civilizations before us. Corruption by either party should be unacceptable, yet in order to win the Presidency politics is largely a game of lying, deceit, and influence. This has been the case since the beginning of time, of course, but with the rise of social media in the last eight years (as witnessed by Trump’s choice communication of the Tweet over press conference) has changed the face of Democracy as we know it, allowing truths and rumors and flat-out lies to spread like wildfire.
My hope is we can discuss this all not in light of the Clinton-vs-Trump election, but instead, as an analysis of our stability as a country, and our ability to rule in a way that will not make everyone happy (as that is impossible), but that will keep our country safe, our children fed and warm, our drinking water clean, and our climate issues addressed so the children of today and tomorrow will be able to live in a world without global conflicts over resources and floods of great destruction. We will embrace each other as people, mostly good or otherwise not evil people, who just want to be able to pay the bills, take a trip once in a while, and put in a good day’s work to support a family. I found this season’s Man in the High Castle quite a beautiful illustration of this principle — on every side there are people believing they are doing what is right for their families, yet even the rules of what is right can backfire when you no longer are in the position of the privileged, when your own laws can be used against you and your family.
How can we work together as a nation to help each other? To see each other as people, and to care for each other as such? Certainly distrusting the media and allowing a man with a thirst for power and wealth to manipulate us against each other is not the answer, yet he does that so well.
We must not dwell on doom-and-gloom scenarios, but we also must remember we are not immune to becoming another blip in history, a once-great civilization lost amongst the many others of the world come and gone. We are not immune to our own self destruction.
life with interest 