Voting from frustration and loss of faith | Rich Elfers

I can tell something bothers me when I wake up thinking about it. That happened after the first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

  • by
  • Wednesday, October 5, 2016 2:15pm
  • Opinion

I can tell something bothers me when I wake up thinking about it. That happened after the first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

An article the day after the debate that appeared in the “Christian Science Monitor” helped me clarify my concern. Written by Peter Grier, it was entitled, “The Roots of Donald Trump’s Anti-Intellectualism.” Clinton had irritated Trump by noting that 50 Republican national security experts considered Trump to be unfit to be president.

Trump retorted that he had been endorsed by the border patrol union and “over 200” generals and admirals. He blamed the experts for putting us in the mess we have been in for the last 10 years (That would have included much of George W. Bush’s second term.)

Trump is uninterested in details, trusting his instincts to make decisions rather than reason, facts and expert advice. His less-informed position and freewheeling style strongly contrasted with Clinton’s careful preparation and carefully controlled responses during the debate. Dealing with details and having plans and goals are very much part of Clinton’s way of processing information.

It seems we are in a repeating cycle. George W. Bush made many important decisions by “listening to his gut.” The American public reacted to his approach by electing a deep-thinking college professor, Barack Obama. Obama’s approach has been largely logical, thoughtful and cautious for the past 7.5 years. Many voters who support Republicans are tired of Obama’s style and are searching for a major change.

Now, in 2016, it appears that many Americans are yearning for a president more like them – not cerebral like Obama, but someone who has proven himself through his business successes that he can adapt and learn. Indeed, most Americans are not intellectuals. Only 39 percent of the population between 25 and 64 have two- and four-year degrees, according to Grier.

Trump’s distrust of experts has some validity. All one has to do is to examine the Vietnam War debacle and the causes for the 2008 economic meltdown. As Trump stated, experts often “can’t see the forest for the trees.” Trust of government and establishment institutions, which include Congress, the military and the media, is at an all-time low according to Grier, dropping from 38 percent in 2007 to 32 percent today.

Trump touts his business acumen and successes as proof that he will be a successful president. His belief, like many who have never served in political office, is that government can be “run like a business.”

As Hillary Clinton, with 30 years of governmental experience, clearly pointed out, government is not like business. It has different goals – to serve and to protect its citizens, not to make a profit. That is a major fallacy in Trump’s thinking due to his lack of experience in government.

The founders of the Constitution instituted checks and balances to protect us from ourselves. By its very structure, government was designed to be plodding, convoluted and inefficient, pitting diverging interests and views against each other in the hope that the selfish, the self-serving and the greedy would butt heads with each other. Out of these conflicts would arise compromise, which would be good for the nation as a whole.

Largely, this structure has kept us strong and adaptable as a nation in the past.

Hopefully, no matter who gets elected in November, the Constitution’s safeguards will protect us: the candidate who acts according to his/her instincts, or the candidate who is careful, concerned about details and well prepared.

It could be, though, that I am wrong. We live in a different age than that of our founders who created the Constitution. Today, the president holds the power of life and death of the entire world at his/her fingertips. A president could make the wrong choice, dooming us all to destruction. That is what wakes me up in the middle of the night, with concerns that the American voters, in their frustration and loss of faith in their institutions, will make the wrong choice.

More in Opinion

Supreme Court resets the playing field

The ruling on the Masterpiece Bakery v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case wasn’t a win for the right or a loss for the left; it’s a chance to do things right the second time around.

Supreme Court ruling shows sanity, moderation

The 14th Amendment equal protection clause does not negate the First Amendment religious freedom clause.

Initiative signatures are the new greenbacks

As of Wednesday, June 6, petitions for four statewide initiatives were getting circulated.

Public record battle brings in a mediator

A taskforce is also being put together, but it’s not clear who will be on it.

One almond latte, if you please | Wally’s World

There was a time in the distant past when a friend and… Continue reading

Eyman risking retirement funds on car tab initiative

Will the $500,000 investment be enough to get the initiative on a ballot?

U.S. isn’t the only nation flirting with trade wars

There’s another brewing between Alberta and British Columbia.

I wish I could stay in Enumclaw | Guest Columnist

There is a kindness and decency and desire to be a community in Enumclaw.

We live in frightening times

Our country is being torn apart from limb to limb, coast to coast.

Voting habits tied to feelings of security

The dangers of authoritarianism are a far greater threat to the nation than seeing rising racial equality and religious diversity brought about by immigration.

Gun rights advocates won the battle, but may lose the war

NRA leaders will need to decide if it’s worth putting resources into a fight in a Left Coast state versus investing in efforts to keep Republicans in control of Congress to prevent ideas like this initiative from becoming federal law.

Trump not accomplishing as much as supporters think

This is in response to Craig Chilton’s letter claiming Trump’s presidency is not a mistake because of all of his “accomplishments,” 81 signed pieces of legislation.