By David Harsanyi
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
During the 1864 presidential race between Abraham Lincoln
and George McClellan, The New York Times
published an editorial that contained this sentence: “The republic is
approaching what is to be one of the most important elections in its history.”
Though there may have been some truth in this claim, three years into the Civil
War means The Times was probably one
election too late.
In any event, since that time, every candidate or
publication that’s made comparable declarations regarding the presidential
contest being the “most important” election of “their lifetime” or of “their generation”
or “in history” or “ever” is completely full of it.
That goes for Gerald Ford, who in a debate against Jimmy
Carter claimed that the 1976 election was “one of the most vital in the history
of America.” As it turns out, a contest between an accidental president and a
highly ineffectual future president wasn’t even the most important election
Carter would participate in.
It also goes for Walter Mondale, who in 1984 told a crowd
that “this is the most important election of our lives.” (Ronald Reagan lost a
single state to Mondale, and the outcome was never really in doubt.) It goes
for John Kerry, who said, “My fellow Americans, this is the most important
election of our lifetime.” It goes for Joe Biden and Barack Obama, both of whom
claimed that 2008 was “the most important election in my lifetime.” It goes for
Newt Gingrich, who said it in 2012. It goes also for the media that acted as if
what they said was true.
It certainly goes for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,
neither of whom possess the requisite talent, vision, or charisma needed to
destroy this country in a mere four years. Yet on Tuesday in Dade City,
Florida, Hillary finally stated what many in her party (from the president to
students to 96-year-old Roger Angell) have been saying for months: “I believe
this may be the most important election of our lifetimes.” For her, yes. For
the rest of us, not so much.
Judging from the histrionic rhetoric we hear daily, most
people believe this is the most important election ever. Did you see the meltdown
left-media had after Hillary’s ethical tribulations again threatened her
chances at the White House? You’d think attacking Hillary was tantamount to
attacking the very foundations of “democracy.” Partisans always seem to believe
that everything that happens to them right now at this very moment is the most
important thing that has ever happened or will ever happen to humanity.
Yes, government’s increasing involvement in the economic
and moral lives of citizens have made political stakes high. It’s true that
2016 features the two suckiest candidates probably ever. It’s also true that
our collective vision of the American project has frayed, perhaps beyond
repair. With the intense scrutiny of contemporary political coverage, more
people are invested in the daily grind of elections, which intensifies the
sting of losing. This anger compounds every cycle (although winning brings its
own disappointment with its unfulfilled promises).
That’s not to say our constitutional republic isn’t
slowly dying. It probably is. This condition isn’t contingent on an election’s
outcome, but on widespread problems with our institutions, politics, and
voters. Whatever you believe the future of governance should look like, one
election is not going make or break it.
In fact, when it comes to policy, it’s far more likely
that very little will change over the next four years. Perhaps even less than
did with the election of Barack Obama, who had two years of one-party rule
before Republicans took back Congress. Last year, Businessweek ran a column headlined “Why 2016 May Be the Most
Important Election of Our Lifetime.” It, like many other similar pieces, argues
that as our politics become more polarized our elections become correspondingly
more significant. But our growing divide might be exactly why 2016 turns out to
be one of the least important election in our lifetimes.
If providence (or dumb luck) takes mercy on the
Constitution, Washington’s gridlock — an organic reflection of the nation’s
disposition –will remain the status quo. Actually, what am I talking about:
that’s exactly what the Constitution was built to do in a divided nation. The
situation will render the next president weaker than most, and somewhat contain
his or her authoritarianism and poor judgement.
This kind of frustrating environment is likely to cause
more recrimination and, unfortunately, abuses of power that are meant to
circumvent the congestion. Still, overall, it’s better than partisan
unilateralism. The situation will not change until we find competent people to
put into the White House or politicians with ideas that have some crossover
appeal. That time is not now.
Of course, none of this is to completely diminish the
importance of the presidential election. Obviously, voters are making a decision
about the future of governance. Judges are at stake. Foreign policy is made.
There are consequences. But if the republic can’t survive a bad executive, then
it’s already dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment