“Not my president”, “dark day for the world” etc. are just a few of the posts we saw in the twenty-four hours following Trump’s landslide victory. Among these were also many posts criticizing the American people for their choice of president and a general opposition to the election result. However, these reactions show an attack against popular opinion, which is a phenomenon not limited to the US but is a symptom of the great political polarization that the West is experiencing.
But why is it a problem? Doesn't everyone have the right to oppose the results they disagree with? Having the right doesn't make it a useful or positive action. First and foremost, the result doesn't change. Therefore, any reactions are outbursts that have a negative effect: they push society further into division. The mockery of all those who vote differently from us creates a climate of hostility and division. When we are supposedly voting for the good of the country, we cannot be simultaneously investing in its polarization. Otherwise, we simply care about getting our way and nothing more.
Beyond that, this kind of criticism is a byproduct of great arrogance. As such, the critic considers their point of view superior to everyone else's and thinks they have the right to critique everyone else's opinon. This arrogance reaches such an extreme point where people who have never lived in the US feel entitled to attach those who voted for Trump. And thus we are led to the detrimental nature of this behavior, which is stagnation. The arrogant person does not listen to the other side because they believe that they always know better than others. Thus, dialogue is replaced by monologue, where no idea is challenged and, therefore, can not evolve.
We are ultimately led to the most important problem of this behavior: anti-democraticness. Not accepting the election result means that one is selectively democratic. That means, when they win, the institutions and society are properly functioning, but the opposite is true when they lose. This tendency, of course, gives rise to even more undemocratic views such as: “(insert any demographic group) don’t know how to vote properly” “lock old people in their homes” etc. These views create a world where the electorate is uniform and belongs to the few. In such a world, of course, where fewer and fewer people are “deserving” of voting, democracy becomes an oligarchy. So, it's important not forget that the fact that everyone has a voice is Democracy's greatest achievement, not an unfortunate side effect.
Ultimately, election results will always make some happy and others sad. We cannot wallow in mourning and toxicity every time we lose, because otherwise we are burdens to our society and not helpful members of it. Democracy is not an issue that arises once every 4 years but it extends to the entire spectrum of life: from conversations all the way to marches and from social media posts all the way to volunteering. So even in adverse election results, as democratic citizens we ought to contribute to advancing our society, not destroying it.
It is our right to diagree, but our obligation to pursue a better tomorrow. This better tomorrow, however, is built today not in the next elections. Win or lose, victory is acheived only when we stand united.
2 Comments