President Jimmy Carter referred to a pervasive sense of unease among the electorate during his campaign for the Oval Office. There had been difficult economic times and significant challenges to the standing of the US in the world. There are somewhat similar challenges faced in this nation today, but the general uneasiness I sense at this point, just prior to the 2016 general election is different in some ways.
In general objective terms, the economy is recovering at a steady, if not rapid enough for some, pace following the Great Recession bequeathed to us by former President George W. Bush. Yet the rhetorical theme that the economy is in bad shape seems to have gained remarkable traction. The US is now engaged in far more bilateral and multilateral relationships abroad than during the "with us or against us" vituperation of the Bush Administration. The current Administration has deported more persons than any of his recent predecessors, and yet the racist and xenophobic rhetoric against immigrants is loud and vitriolic. Claims of lost jobs, including blaming immigrants, are mainstays of political stump speeches. Despite the discursive atmospherics, the jobless rate has declined steadily and just recently fell below 5%, indicating substantial recovery. Of course, many good paying manufacturing jobs have departed to foreign countries and are unlikely to ever return; but that is in no way the fault of immigrants. Nonpartisan research indicates that immigrants are not taking jobs current citizens are eager to fill, and undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to local, state and federal economies. So the sense and the expressions, often fueled by demagoguery, is not based upon evidence. It is played out in fear and psychological triggers.
When Carter was running for office, the tone and content of the rhetoric was of a different quality. People were fearful of what would happen in the future, but they were not fearful in their hearts about the future of democracy. That is perhaps what makes the current disquiet so different and potentially alarming. When Carter was elected, people had a preference for candidates. However, the unease was not based upon a concern that the nation would be in substantial peril if EITHER candidate won. Today, we have a candidate who has openly declared that he may not respect the decision of the electorate, claiming it is "rigged." He has stoked anti-government sentiment and suggested [second amendment] armed violence in the event he should lose the popular vote. The opposing candidate has substantial experience in the halls of power, including roles as First Lady and as Secretary of State. Yet she has also shown a resistance to transparency and a lack of wise judgment in the use of a personal email server [although many others have also used this convenience]. This candidate, however, has demonstrated a solid understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law in our nation, as well as a respect for dissent.
This brings us to the current "unease." The fears expressed are deeper and more emotional that in the 1976 election cycle. The campaigns have revealed a deep divide in the electorate in which one campaign eschews the concept of a "common good" for a more self-centered inclination to blame "others" for the claimed troubles and anxiousness. As noted, much of the fear is factually ungrounded, but is stoked through emotional appeals. The other campaign appeals to a sense of "unity" in the auspices of a traditional neoliberal establishment that has not been particularly responsive to the needs and concerns of progressive liberals or the endangered middle class. The hallmark distinction, perhaps, is the absence of hope. If the "doomsayer" candidate wins, there is no hope of unifying an electorate that has been purposefully divided among factions within, as well as set against foreign threats. If the establishment candidate wins, there is little hope that the common plight currently faced will be markedly improved.
It is thus no great wonder that we are seeing a broad sense of disquiet, and even fear among the populace. The election may seem more like a question of avoiding disaster than a step toward a better future. We are, unfortunately at the mercy of a political system that has been corrupted in large measure by the license given in the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United. The level of influence that unregulated corporate and super PAC funding exerts over the electoral process cannot be overstated. That influence has permeated the structure of governance and embedded practices that will make removal of its tentacles extremely difficult and time consuming. The designation of voting districts and measures that suppress voting are widely and deeply embedded. Politicians owe their incumbency [and loyalty]to such funding and not to their electorates. The emotionally expressed concern may actually be an organic and systemic reaction to an infirmity in the very foundation of our democratic experiment. The path to recovery of health lies not just in the selection of any immediate candidate, but far deeper and invasive interventions to fix the systemic toxins that have yielded such symptoms.
