Maybe we like Donald Trump, or maybe we don’t. Time will tell whether, or how much.
But, following the final Presidential debate, recent headlines are all about a response Donald Trump gave regarding whether or not he would concede to the election winner if he loses.
Much of the United States is now up-in-arms about it, apparently driven by the media. I say that it’s apparently driven by the media, only because, immediately following the debate, television pundits were already saying that such a statement is un-American and that Trump should be disqualified. Disqualified. Maybe that conclusion is justified, maybe not, as we may see.
By the way, I am not suggesting that FOX, MSNBC or CNN are not more or less acting similarly regarding different candidates, only that the importance of the statement by the candidate, timing, subject and the conclusion (by some implied professed logic) by major media were sufficiently proximate.
Now, with such strong judgments, by the media charged to report news rather than to make the news, I do think it’s appropriate to set the stage of Americanism.
First, let us remember that an opposition candidacy for President of the United States, and perhaps any such candidacy for any political office, is a type of protest, by its very nature. And, a candidacy such as Donald Trump’s or Bernie Sanders, as “outsiders,” even far more so. Peaceful protests are very American.
Let us remember that an opposition candidacy for President of the United States…is a type of protest, by its very nature.
As posited by John Stuart Mill (Thinking and Opinions) and (Eccentricity and Being Unique in a Crowd), these opinionated and eccentric peaceful revolutionaries are important to challenge the old systems: hard challenges are to the political system what exercise is to the body: health by way of some pain, distaste or minor trauma to a muscle to force it to grow. It often approaches as such, with the beauty of it coming later. So, let us not disdain Bernie or Donald, for one reason or another, since they both cause us reflection and re-assessment to our current path, and both are supported by large groups of our fellow American citizens.
Second, possibly more importantly, the very subject-matter of the comment from a political candidate (who we know is already protesting, of sorts) regards the process of the election itself. That is, one of Donald Trump’s campaign protests concerns the election process itself and the media that reports it.
So that is the stage, if you will: A political candidate who is protesting the current system by his very candidacy, and then the exponential impact that the candidate is challenging the existing system and the process and the claimed media favoritism that he perceives exists. It’s sort of a double-protest.
But, now back to the question to Donald Trump: the media asking if he will concede to the election result if he loses the election. Hillary Clinton said she would do so.
In short, there are problems with the question itself.
The question asked would never be admissible in court, where there are rules of fairness to a jury audience. Why? First, it seeks a response to a hypothetical, not a fact. It is a general question that seeks a response based upon specific details not yet available. But let’s get beyond that technicality.
Second, again more importantly, the question is simply not fair.
To be fair to Trump’s side of the story—whether you like him or the story or not—Donald Trump’s position is that the media and the election process are rigged. This is not far-fetched, of course: in the 1960s news reporting was one of the most respected industries, and in 2015, according to Gallop Polls, trust for media hit an all time low of 40%.
Hillary Clinton does not assert the process is rigged, and probably with the exception of FOX, she tends to be satisfied with media reporting. Therefore, as her and Trump’s campaign protests are effective opposites, we must assess their respective responses differently within their respective contexts.
We must assess [Hillary’s and Donald’s] respective responses differently within their respective contexts.
It does not matter if Trump is right or wrong. It only matters that we assess the position correctly within context.
If Hillary says she’ll concede to the election result, it is simply because the essence of her argument is not over the propriety of the election process itself. Therefore, her response makes sense. If Hillary would refuse to concede to the election result for a process she endorses, that is certainly a problem. But, Hillary’s view of the election is consistent with her response to the question presented.
But, the conclusion drawn by the media is unfair and different for Trump, since he is challenging the process itself. The process and assessment do not care about why he takes his position. Asking Donald Trump whether he would concede is tantamount to asking a person who argues that he has been tricked, if he will concede to the result of the trick after the trick he asserts has arguably tricked him.
Asking Donald Trump whether he would concede is tantamount to asking a person who argues that he has been tricked, if he will concede to the result of the trick after the trick he asserts has arguably tricked him…
Simply stated, Donald Trump’s position is consistent with his premise, as well. Putting Donald Trump’s response into Hillary’s premise is simply not fair to his protest.
The game is the game, I suppose, but some rhetoric is not easily observed or quickly understood. Other media rhetoric, such as the logic of, “Because we take lawful deductions, therefore, we are not patriots” is more simplistic, but lawyers know that one of the finest jurists, Judge Learned Hand said, in Helvering v. Gregory (1934),
Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.
Nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.
Common sense. Yet, these devices of rhetoric, much by trained attorneys in a political game of persuasion, are presented with deft and volume in the hope that the mind of the listener will finally concede to the superficial truth of the message.
It is for us, the listeners, to stay strong and to push back with common sense, lest we be rolled over by the sheer volume of nonsense.
______________________________________________________
Stand for America® is a series of publications intersecting philosophy and traditional American values.
© 2016 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn. Read more articles here.
GRZ48 GRZUID48