Is it too soon to say the 2016 Election has been beneficial? Given the timbre of civic discourse, it may indeed be a little soon, but hear me out.
As I watched the election season unfold last year, the level of partisan acrimony hit a level I don’t ever recall seeing or hearing in the seven presidential elections I have memory of. To be sure, you had a somewhat unique situation of two of the most disliked candidates in modern history facing off.
During the election season and in its aftermath, the apocalyptic rhetoric escalated as partisans were sure the candidates and the president-elect would unmake the “America as we know it.”
I don’t want to underemphasize the real panic and anger people felt (and still feel), but as I watch the results of this election unfold in the form of a Trump administration, I’ve been heartened by one big takeaway:
We’re all talking about constitutional citizenship now
How awesome is that!?!? In a society that reminds us time and again it is polarized, we have liberals and conservatives, progressive and libertarians rediscovering the federal system of checks and balances. I’m hoping that we can find in these discussions the “common middle” of civic values and knowledge that is at the foundation of our republic.
As I explore this concept of constitutional citizenship in future posts, here are my initial contributions to the discussion:
Five counterintuitive “goods” that came out of the Election of 2016.
1. Votes now count
I know, I know. You’re probably thinking, “The hell it does! Hilary won the popular vote by 3 million votes and still lost!”
That’s true, but I’m not making this statement from the perspective of election results per se (more on that later). I’m looking at this from the perspective of campaigning. From Clinton’s “deplorables” comment to the all-but-one skewed statistical models, this election forced us to consider not just some groups that feel disenfranchised, but all groups that feel disenfranchised.
Clinton learned the painful lesson that you can’t take a segment of your traditional base for granted, and Trump is now learning that lesson in the form of the fractious Freedom Caucus in the House and critical Senators in the Senate.
Isn’t that what we’ve been longing for? National leaders who will pay attention to their constituents, who will stop taking votes for granted? We took an important step in that direction.
2. Third parties are back… I think
OK, this is probably a little over optimistic, but when was the last election where we were (semi)seriously evaluating electoral models that had a third party candidate pushing an election to the House? Not for a long while.
The difficulty of running a third party campaign is well known in the American system, but viable third party candidates serve a crucial role of forcing the main parties to adjust messaging, reconsider strategy, or work to reconnect with their respective bases. It’s too early to tell if that’s been the case here, but the fact that some serious third party contenders were in the running (and getting press time) on both sides of the aisle sent an important signal to the Democratic and Republican parties not to ignore certain segments of their bases.
3. The Constitution’s electoral model (should be) validated
A lot of my friends were brooding over the “outmoded” Electoral College in the immediate aftermath of the election. If that describes you, this point may invite incredulity. However, the Constitution’s electoral model is about more than the Electoral College and needs to be seen in its whole scope.
Fundamentally, it’s based on the concept of rotating leadership (term limits), popular AND representative voting that looks at both citizens and states as stakeholders (the college), and the division and sharing of power.
Why all these components? To prevent a tyranny.
The Founding Fathers knew that tyranny came in many different forms, at the hands of majorities AND minorities. The constitutional model sought to prevent those extreme outcomes, and I think those who are upset about the outcome of the election can be grateful for this foresight.
Four years of Trump is bad, eight years is worse, and that same period of Trump with uncontested power is unimaginable.
4. We can split tickets because this isn’t a parliamentary system
This wasn’t talked about all that much. In fact, the Brexit outcome and the success of nationalist/populist parties across Europe have really obscured this point. That point is that in many parliamentary systems, voters pick a slate of candidates by voting for parties, not individual candidates.
This can often give fringe parties and their extreme leaders outsized influences on election outcomes and policy formation, especially when those parties must be included in coalition governments.
The Dutch and German elections are important to learn from here. Geert Wilders, a nationalist known for Islamophobic rants and policy positions was defeated in his bid for the presidency, but his party finished second and picked up seats in the assembly. Not exactly the check to nativist populism that many in the American press heralded. Likewise, the success of Alternative for Deutschland in becoming the first far right to enter the German parliament in over 70 years is largely due to the unique structure of German elections.
On this side of the Atlantic, disaffected conservatives and Republicans exercised their right to vote for individuals by refusing to vote for Trump while supporting their local party candidates. Democrats did the same while supporting their party to keep its place in Congress, even as they voted for non-Clinton candidates.
This is a good thing as it denied Trump the mandate he hoped to have while sending a strong message to the GOP that they should exercise caution in how far to go in backing Trump. Early opposition from the conservative House Freedom Caucus over healthcare reform demonstrates that Trump does not have a blank check on legislation.
5. Checks and balances, baby, checks and balances
I believes there’s a fine line between an effective government and an abusive government. The art of citizenship and good governance is holding that line.
If you’ve detected a certain anti-Trump undertone to this post, you’re reading this right.
I’m not happy he was chosen to represent the party of Lincoln, and I have very mixed feelings about his administration (to be fair, this first year could’ve been worse).
That being said, I’m loving the reemergence of what I hope to be a revitalized and corrected system of checks and balances as Congress moves to assert itself and the judiciary has checked Trump’s more abusive executive orders.
The biggest and best reason I have to be hopeful in the aftermath of the 2016 election is that there’s a system of checks and balances that is starting to assert itself in what will hopefully become a bipartisan manner.
Looking ahead…
Going forward, I hope to see an ongoing process of the Trump presidency getting checked in its ambitions and moderating its position and tone as a result.
That’s my hope on the political level. My hope on the social level is that we, as citizens, will also reflect a more moderate approach to our politics. Living with others of different values, opinions and priorities is part of the American democracy. This necessitates listening, discussion and compromise – values in short supply if the zeitgeist is to believed.
So it’s over to us. There’s reason to believe that the institutions of our republic can survive a Trump term. Can our relationships?