The strength and viability of government depends largely on the perception of legitimacy.
In a democratic nation such as ours, legitimacy is sustained through tradition, long-standing political institutions, constitutional law, rule of law, and processes including fair and free elections.
Late in this election cycle, assertions that have been made regarding a “rigged” election by the Republican presidential candidate are an assault on the perception of the legitimacy of our political system.
For well over 200 years, the United States has enjoyed the democratic guarantee of fair and free elections, along with the peaceful transfer of executive power.
Serious voting-relating issues such as gerrymandering and voter I.D. laws are indeed impediments to voter-access and fairness.
Nevertheless, the statements that Donald Trump has made regarding a rigged election are a direct attack on the entire electoral process.
He is asserting that the overall result of the Nov. 8 election may indeed be rigged.
In the last and final presidential debate, when pressed on the question of whether he will accept the results of the election, Trump refused to state that if he lost the election that he will concede to the winner.
He simply said: “I’ll look at it at the time” and that he’ll leave us “in suspense.”
This type of cavalier rhetoric about the legitimacy of our presidential election/voting process is irresponsible, unfounded, and potentially dangerous.
The accusation that the entire electoral result may be rigged and fraudulent has been met with a sense of shock and has been disavowed by many in the Republican party, including his running mate.
However, his assertion of the possibility of a fraudulent electoral result should not come as a surprise.
His refusal to accept the outcome of the election is just one part of a larger method of de-legitimization employed since the very beginning of his political campaign.
In essence, Trump’s method to victory is denigration and destruction.
He attempts to de-legitimize others in order to appear smarter, bigger, larger than life, and the best, and only, solution to our nation’s problems.
This method is not unlike the method of other dictatorial figures throughout history.
He has denigrated both individuals and groups.
He speaks of Mexicans as rapists, drug lords, and “bad hombres.”
He has made fun of the disabled, made racist and stereotypical remarks painting the inner cities as terrible places, insulted war heroes, including one in his own party, and proposed a ban on an entire religion from entering the country.
Besides this, he has strategically worked to demean half of the population by judging women based on their weight, attractiveness, and has scaled women as if we are living in the world of pageantry.
Worse than that, he claims that his own words about sexual assault are merely locker room banter.
He has diminished some of his accusers’ validity based on their lack of attractiveness.
Further, he has interrupted Hillary Clinton’s time during the last presidential debate by calling her a “nasty woman.”
Yet, he asserts that “nobody respects women more” than he does.
In this view, women are not deserving of any more respect than what he gives them.
Not to mention, he does not trust women and their doctors to make difficult medical decisions about their own reproductive circumstances.
Yet, his strategy and method are not just to denigrate individuals and groups.
He has repeatedly said, during the presidential debates, that America is “stupid.”
He’s frequently called America “stupid” and used the word “stupidity” in relation to our trade, economics, and in relation to our military strategy.
Trump has said the administration was “stupid” for announcing military activity in Mosul, rather than leaving the “element of surprise.”
The fact remains, that in the case of Mosul, the announcement was actually a part of the military strategy.
Nonetheless, he attempts to make everything look stupid, useless, or fraudulent.
Beyond this, he alludes to the idea that everything else is a media conspiracy and purposeful collusion to undermine his campaign.
His latest stance that he will not agree to concede the election since it may be rigged is just another attempt to delegitimize something else — this time, America’s entire voting process.
It may seem that this all-encompassing attempt to denigrate and de-legitimize is the result of excessive ego and pride.
Certainly, ego and pride are a large part of the equation.
However, another larger part of the Trumpian method is the strategy to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator: commodities.
In his perspective, people, processes, and institutions become commodities that either work to his advantage, or do not.
If an individual, group of people, or an institution does not facilitate his own self-interest, then de-ligitmization and denigration seem to be the alternative.
Constituents are no longer human beings and citizens, but agents of either support or opposition.
This type of commodification, bereft of empathy, compassion, selflessness, and a true desire to serve the best interest of all people, undermines the core of our democratic values and processes.
This brings an important question to the forefront of American politics — are certain characteristics such as empathy necessary for the office of commander in chief?
Certainly, the inherently complex responsibility of the American presidency is a reminder that presidential politics is much more complicated than the qualifications of a business savvy executive able to draw crowds of supporters.
That is, besides proper education, political experience, and mastery of both domestic and international affairs, the American presidency requires a person capable of human empathy and compassion.
What we have learned from this election cycle is that these human components are not some Pollyannaish ideal or naïve hope that is inconsequential in American politics — they are necessary for the protection of our legitimacy as a functioning democracy.
It is unlikely that a commander in chief can make effective decisions regarding matters such as national security, international diplomacy, and economic policy without the sobering and humane sentiments of empathy, compassion, and respect.
The president of a democratic nation derives power and prestige not from a brutish display of strength or bravado, but from the deep knowledge of the values and attributes of a democratic system combined with an emotionally intelligent perspective on human capability and value.
Political pundits speak about the likability factor of candidates, along with their “trustworthy” attributes.
More than likability and trustworthiness, it is important to acknowledge that the Commander in Chief must have a capacity for empathy and compassion and that this is crucial to the executive office.
Without such capabilities, the Presidency cannot protect the most fundamental values of our American system — the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Diana Poulos-Lutz
Mineola
Readers Write: Trump’s attack on electoral process
