When voters' discretion is mostly needed
August 1 2016 By Abiodun Giwa
Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Barack Obama
American voters know by now who the establishment candidate is, and they know who the outsider candidate is, for the November presidential election. They know that Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate and that she is for the retainence of the status quo, and they know that Donald Trump is the outsider candidate and the change candidate.
Debaters in a section of the American media have said that no candidate can be status quo candidate and change candidate at the same time.
President Barack Obama would have the unenviable job of handing over to whoever of these candidates, who emerges the winner in the elections. It is then that the world will see Obama doing the real handing over of the baton to a successor, and not like the type of handing the baton for show, which the world witnessed at the Democratic Convention.
These political conventions are reminders of a cliche in Nigeria about 'Lagos for Show'. The real election and handing over ceremony is never for show, and only God can say for now who will be the next American president after Obama. Still on Nigeria , I remember Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the best qualified Nigerian to be president in his life time, but who was labeled by his financially powerful opponents with all sorts of unacceptable tags, all in the bid to deprive him election, just like Trump is being currently labeled by his politically powerful opponents. Awolowo's opponents succeeded, but Nigeria has been the worst for it.
I have looked up the meaning of demagogue in the dictionary and I don't see any reason anyone will refuse to be called a demagogue as Trump has been accused , when there is a reason to be a demagogue. This is how www.dictionary.com defines demagogue,"a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. 2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people."
There is nothing wrong in being a demagogue provided that the issues the leader is calling the people's attention are existing and in need of solution. To be rational is to be discreet. Is there any reason anyone will say that Trump is irrational other than for sending establishment candidates in his party home as losers in the primary election? Was not President Obama a demagogue eight years ago as the first black candidate on the ticket of the Democratic Party, who with his power of oration sent Clinton home and later appointed as a secretary of state, a position that later became the waterloo for Clinton's aspiration for president?
Without the faux pas that Clinton committed as secretary of state with the use of private email server and all the acrs of indiscretions came to light during the investigations, she would be the best candidate without doubts. but those acts of indiscretions and the later act of the party allegedly favoring her to emerge as the party candidate against bernie sanders brought unnecessary cloud over her aspiration.Paired along with Trump, who has also been accused of lacking the temperament to be president, Clinton's baggage look heavier than that of Trump.
Why has Trump accused for lacking temperament to be president by his diehard opponents, who have been in power for donkey years and are fighting to ensure that this outsider does not dislodge them from what they have come to see as their birthright as carrier politicians, other than to ensuring their continue hold to power? Whereas every free born American should have the right to aspire to the position of president and not for p[articular families and their cronies.
There is the Bush and the Clinton dynasties, and in a reference to the beautiful parade of the Trump's children at the recent party's convention, the media stylishly the Trump's too may be about having a dynasty! Who need a dynasty in a democracy? What has become apparent is that these dynasties and their lobbyists have cornered Washington and Americans, who know the effect of the bastardization of democracy as a result are crying for a change. Obama promised the change in 2008, when he said change was coming, before his inauguration. But many Americans in reference to Obama's promise of change are saying today that no change has come.
Any family of a soldier killed in active service has the right to the claim of heroism, but to politicize as witnessed at the Democratic Party's convention, what should essentially be a private family affair. And this brings to the fore, the reason Trump's enemies have labeled him as lacking the temperament, because he has proposed a temporary ban on Muslims coming to the country, due to continued terror attacks on all of us, by people who have identified themselves as Muslims.Trump has not committed any unholy act with his thought and suggestion, because there is a reason for his floating of the idea.
Is this no longer a free country, where people should be free to think and make their thoughts public? Isn't this development a reminder of Socrates' view about democracy, establishment political leaders and the reason he said he prefered to teach young people how to think than become a political leader? And wasn't his action against the establishment the cause of the wrong allegations against him and the reason he was killed?
Can't we all debate the issue of temporarily banning or not banning Muslims and dispense with it, and carry on with our lives without allowing the matter to stand on the way of good and bad ideas coming public and choosing the good, while we dispense with the bad, for the good of the country? Should't we be able to differentiate those who are morally invalids among us than relying on politically motivated enmity to decide what is a person's temperament against that of people who have openly demonstrated lack of discretion in high office? Should not lack of discretion be a major mark of disqualification for the high office?
Are we going to push under the carpet, the director of the FBI's submission that one of the candidates in the forthcoming election has demonstrated high disregard for discretion in high office to massage our religion and cultural ego against a man who has merely made public his thought and an idea?? Should not there be a wall between the U.S and Mexico to stop illegal immigration that has become one of the points about the country traveling in a wrong direction?
Debaters in a section of the American media have said that no candidate can be status quo candidate and change candidate at the same time.
President Barack Obama would have the unenviable job of handing over to whoever of these candidates, who emerges the winner in the elections. It is then that the world will see Obama doing the real handing over of the baton to a successor, and not like the type of handing the baton for show, which the world witnessed at the Democratic Convention.
These political conventions are reminders of a cliche in Nigeria about 'Lagos for Show'. The real election and handing over ceremony is never for show, and only God can say for now who will be the next American president after Obama. Still on Nigeria , I remember Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the best qualified Nigerian to be president in his life time, but who was labeled by his financially powerful opponents with all sorts of unacceptable tags, all in the bid to deprive him election, just like Trump is being currently labeled by his politically powerful opponents. Awolowo's opponents succeeded, but Nigeria has been the worst for it.
I have looked up the meaning of demagogue in the dictionary and I don't see any reason anyone will refuse to be called a demagogue as Trump has been accused , when there is a reason to be a demagogue. This is how www.dictionary.com defines demagogue,"a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. 2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people."
There is nothing wrong in being a demagogue provided that the issues the leader is calling the people's attention are existing and in need of solution. To be rational is to be discreet. Is there any reason anyone will say that Trump is irrational other than for sending establishment candidates in his party home as losers in the primary election? Was not President Obama a demagogue eight years ago as the first black candidate on the ticket of the Democratic Party, who with his power of oration sent Clinton home and later appointed as a secretary of state, a position that later became the waterloo for Clinton's aspiration for president?
Without the faux pas that Clinton committed as secretary of state with the use of private email server and all the acrs of indiscretions came to light during the investigations, she would be the best candidate without doubts. but those acts of indiscretions and the later act of the party allegedly favoring her to emerge as the party candidate against bernie sanders brought unnecessary cloud over her aspiration.Paired along with Trump, who has also been accused of lacking the temperament to be president, Clinton's baggage look heavier than that of Trump.
Why has Trump accused for lacking temperament to be president by his diehard opponents, who have been in power for donkey years and are fighting to ensure that this outsider does not dislodge them from what they have come to see as their birthright as carrier politicians, other than to ensuring their continue hold to power? Whereas every free born American should have the right to aspire to the position of president and not for p[articular families and their cronies.
There is the Bush and the Clinton dynasties, and in a reference to the beautiful parade of the Trump's children at the recent party's convention, the media stylishly the Trump's too may be about having a dynasty! Who need a dynasty in a democracy? What has become apparent is that these dynasties and their lobbyists have cornered Washington and Americans, who know the effect of the bastardization of democracy as a result are crying for a change. Obama promised the change in 2008, when he said change was coming, before his inauguration. But many Americans in reference to Obama's promise of change are saying today that no change has come.
Any family of a soldier killed in active service has the right to the claim of heroism, but to politicize as witnessed at the Democratic Party's convention, what should essentially be a private family affair. And this brings to the fore, the reason Trump's enemies have labeled him as lacking the temperament, because he has proposed a temporary ban on Muslims coming to the country, due to continued terror attacks on all of us, by people who have identified themselves as Muslims.Trump has not committed any unholy act with his thought and suggestion, because there is a reason for his floating of the idea.
Is this no longer a free country, where people should be free to think and make their thoughts public? Isn't this development a reminder of Socrates' view about democracy, establishment political leaders and the reason he said he prefered to teach young people how to think than become a political leader? And wasn't his action against the establishment the cause of the wrong allegations against him and the reason he was killed?
Can't we all debate the issue of temporarily banning or not banning Muslims and dispense with it, and carry on with our lives without allowing the matter to stand on the way of good and bad ideas coming public and choosing the good, while we dispense with the bad, for the good of the country? Should't we be able to differentiate those who are morally invalids among us than relying on politically motivated enmity to decide what is a person's temperament against that of people who have openly demonstrated lack of discretion in high office? Should not lack of discretion be a major mark of disqualification for the high office?
Are we going to push under the carpet, the director of the FBI's submission that one of the candidates in the forthcoming election has demonstrated high disregard for discretion in high office to massage our religion and cultural ego against a man who has merely made public his thought and an idea?? Should not there be a wall between the U.S and Mexico to stop illegal immigration that has become one of the points about the country traveling in a wrong direction?
