The Current Election is Evidence That The United States is Crumbling

Pro's argument can be simplified to a single syllogism as: P1: An authoritarian leader is evidence of a society in collapse. P2: The candidates nominated by the two dominant political parties in the 2016 US presidential election are alike in that they promise a significantly authoritarian outlook. C: Therefore, the current election is evidence that the US is crumbling. Even if either premise proved true (neither is entirely true), there are at least two unspoken premises that must also prove true for this statement to work: P3: One of the two front-runners will win the election. This condition must prove true for the above premises to be true and can't be ascertained until at least Nov. 9th- nearly certain but still not yet proven. P4: Candidates with authoritarian outlooks will be authoritarian leaders. While a reasonable assumption, not inevitably true. Some authoritarians leaders leave democratic institutions relatively unharmed- Oliver Cromwell, FDR, Lincoln. Some authoritarians actually decentralize power and improve liberty- F. W. de Clerk, Gorbachev, Andrew Jackson. This assumption must prove true for the conclusion to be proven true but can't be assessed until either hypothetical president's legacy has been somewhat established- Jan 2021, let's say. The projected nature of both conditions makes the thesis unproven but we need not wait to invalidate the argument since the more apparent premises are demonstrably false. P1: An authoritarian leader is evidence of a society in collapse. The major premise of Pro's argument is deeply ingrained into our Republic's mythology but even a casual historical survey quickly disproves this assumption. Americans tend to point to the American Revolution, to Hitler and Napoleon and say, "the rise of authoritarianism presages a fall." But most of the world's largest and most enduring civilizations were predicated on the legitimacy of authoritarian rule from beginning to end: Egypt, Persia, the Mongols, the British Raj. However much we admire the Roman Republic or the Greek Demos, we must admit that those societies achieved peak influence, peak prosperity long after democratic institutions were suppressed in favor of authoritarian governance. China has maintained its position as the most enduring and most populous civilization for over 4,000 years in spite of a highly authoritarian tradition of governance. In the bigger picture, the American experiment dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal is still in the trial and error phase, still being defined and developed and tested. The pendulum has decidedly swung towards freedom over the past century but democracy still can't be said to have yet proven the more sustainable system. As I said in the first round, the strength of democracy is not demonstrated by an ability to deny the ascendance of authoritarian figures. Even a strong democracy requires an occasional adjustment in the balance towards more consolidated power in response to crisis. The strength of democracy is demonstrated by the constraints placed upon those consolidations and the capacity to restore liberties to the balance when the crisis has passed. Democracy took a hit when the US confined Japanese-Americans to concentration camps in 1941 but was renewed by reconciliation and reparation in the decades after WW2. So it was with the Civil War, with slavery, with indigenous peoples. Guantanamo Bay and the drone campaigns are present stains on our ideal nature but so long as we determine to correct and denounce these faults, our society need not be permanently diminished. The advantage that this resiliency has over authoritarian prophylaxis is the accommodation of the useful brute, the philosopher king of Plato's Republic. Sometimes, the intransigence of the contrary, the baloney of the bureaucrat needs to be overcome by decisive action. So long as the people can reject that power, make philosopher kings into fisher kings, then democracy may be sustained or even improved. Con refutes the assumption that the mere ascendency of an authoritarian leader equates to a crumbling society. Pro's major premise is not always true. P2: The candidates nominated by the two dominant political parties in the 2016 US presidential election are alike in that they promise a significantly authoritarian outlook. Even if the major premise were always true, the argument still needs to demonstrate that Trump and Clinton are both particularly authoritarian to establish an inevitable increase. Let's agree that some authoritarian tendency is implicit in any personality with the chutzpah to seek the lofty mantle of "Leader of the Free World." Ford was not particularly authoritarian but he pardoned Nixon in the face of popular condemnation. [1] Carter was not particularly authoritarian but he invaded Iran without consulting Congress. [2] Let's also agree that Trump projects a particularly authoritarian interpretation of executive power However, I refute that Clinton can be likened to Trump in degree of authoritarianism. Nor would I characterize Clinton as particularly authoritarian. I assume that Hillary as president would prove no more authoritarian than her ex-presidential husband, likely to be more constrained by political opposition than Bill, and likely to be more restrained by caution favoring institutional norms. Quite belatedly, let's introduce a definition of authoritarianism here and contrast each candidate by authoritarian characteristics: "A form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms." "Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities: 1. limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups; 2. a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency; 3. minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity; 4. informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers." [3] Pluralism- The Clinton team is just that- a team. Recent Wikileaks data has revealed a wide range of political advisors over-analyzing every position, over-editing every speech, vigorously debating the best move and the consequences. The apparent rise of her more critical advisors, like Podesta and Mook, over her cautious loyalists suggest a shift towards improved accountability in a hypothetical administration. As Clinton quipped last week, "it takes a village to write this joke."[4] Trump, by all accounts, regularly ignores his advisors and contradicts his own campaign even his VP. Trump decision-making is done by a team of one and his inner circle is essentially his children. Legitimacy- Clinton's path to the White House has been fairly traditional: Yale lawyer and political operative for 50 years, Senator, Secretary of State, tested and experienced two-time campaigner. Her presidential potential has been recognized and anticipated for 20 years Trump has no political credentials. His legitimacy is based on a TV character he once played. His candidacy is predicated on reactionary fears of exaggerated threats- immigrants, terrorists, urban violence, political conspirators. When asked to explain why he was running for president, Trump once responded, "I love America so much, I see what's going on with regulation. I see what's going on with the hatred that everybody has for each other. You look at Baltimore, you look at Cleveland, you look at all of the places just exploding. We have an African American president and we've never had it so bad." [5] Suppression of Political opponents- Clinton has history of being a team player. In this campaign she modified positions to satisfy the left (TPP, minimum wage) and negotiated with her rival Sanders to achieve his endorsement. After her loss in '08, she joined her rival's administration and in return now enjoys his full throated endorsement: "I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States of America." [6]. As a Senator, she won the cooperation and approval of many political opponents. "I found her to be easy to work with, smart and willing to reach agreement on complicated issues," said GOP Senator Judd Gregg. ""I would think Sen. Clinton would have a lot more respect for the institution than Obama did," said former GOP whip Don Nickles. In fact, Hillary was confirmed by her old co-workers to be Secretary of State by a 94-2 vote. She emerged from her roles as FLOTUS and First Lady of Arkansas more popular during times of Conservative ascendancy. [7] Trump, on the other hand, has left a tornado's trail of destruction behind his passage to power. Prominent GOP bulwarks like McCain and the Bushes refuse to be associated with Trump. He's openly battled with Ryan and Priebus and weakened the prospects of down ballot tickets. Some now question whether the Grand Old Party will survive Trump's candidacy. [8] Vague powers- Clinton was an actively engaged FLOTUS. She has experienced the mandate's "big stick" and acquiesced to the office's limitations. She knows the law and its limits and probably has some notion of what she can get away with. Trump is demonstrably ignorant of most aspects of executive authority. Of the 21 actions Trump has promised to perform on his first day in office, most are not his job and many violate the Constitution. [9] Clinton is not particularly authoritarian and certainly less authoritarian than Trump. The US can therefore reject authoritarianism by rejecting Trump, preventing the crumbled country pessimistic Pro predicts.