Friday, November 11, 2016

Meaning Of Donald Trump Victory

Prof. Rakesh Sinha
Meaning of Trump's   Victory
George Washington to Trump civil society witnessed many ups and down. The consensus has been evolved and endorsed for  a society based on unrestrained individual freedom and equality. It has been subtly different from Europe which has been perennially  under the burden of it superiority in its subconscious. They are semi racialised liberals. US has ceaselessly endeavored to  free itself from the European maladies. There is a problem of Black -White dichotomy but along with strong will to come out of it.  It fought a civil war to end slavery and it was Lincoln, the then US president , who while dedicating Gettysburg  Memorial to those who were killed in the civil war (July1- July 3, 1863)  defined democracy as "Government by the people , for the people and of the people." However,the US can not escape from the responsibility of exploiting the world by using its might and divisive politics.  Many of the contemporary problems of the   world have their genesis in the US politics and politics. Nevertheless ,it is a highly democratic and conscious civil society. its presidential election spell bounds the word not de to curiosity but its impact on the world order.
The contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump should not be evaluated by elitist parameters as it happened during the campaign. A class of elites developed who share  common interests and character are product of the Western modernity, imagine things and accordingly construct their opinion. They are ontologically unnecessary idealists and are highly capacious to manipulate empirical realities. They possess unequivocally selective ignorance and un-selective  arrogance. This is so dangerously woven in their character that they themselves fail to see their slow but consistent delegitimization. They are   dogmatic ideologues of democracy and secularism.  This was seen not only in the case of the US election 2016 but also 2014 election in India . There are classic  commonalities. The US newspaper the New York Times  19 member editorial team came out an appeal to the voters of India not to elect Narendra Modi and the UK’s Guardian  published an appeal of few dozens dogmatic intellectuals against Modi. They have been eluded   by their  own ill perception that  they are Brahma Vishnu Mahesh of democracy. It is the people who are Brahma Vishnu Mahesh of democracy and all other agencies are  their servants. This includes media also. Indian voters rejected the rejection of the NYT & the Guardian. A wise man learns from the mistake which he commits consciously or unconsciously but an arrogant repeats with more arrogantly. This happened in the case of the US presidential  election. NYT called Donald Trump as a ‘bigot’. Its mandate was to defeat him. And after his victory the Guardian  made its headline that US entered into uncertain future. Both of them right to reject anyone and support or oppose . But that is not a journalistic ethics. It does not create binary nor it  injects its perceptions and prejudices into its readers. Its job is to unravel good and bad things and let the readers make their opinion. Opinionated journalism  is always partisan. Then the thin line between the party journals and independent media gets blurred and the latter’s claim as objective is also declaimed. In both the Indian and US cases both the newspapers o proved ineffectual and  slap on their faces. If any intellectual and political morality is left then the editors should have resigned  to make the path  for others.
No doubt Hillary is a modest  and she has projected herself as pretentiously liberal but  financial integrity of her campaign always remained  under suspicion and she had not in anyway proved herself unique personality with creative and productive ideas. Nor her social philosophy is different from the  dogmatic intellectuals. She is politician by accident. She did not show outstanding  performance  as the secretary of the state.  On the other hand Trump considered himself a non serious candidate who came into race just to rake and raise issues touching realities of the civil society. Therefore during the campaign his observations kept him in the orbit of immodest  controversies. But his expression remained unconsidered in respect of  the truth he spelled. Trump was not serious but voters were. Had Ms Clinton shred even one fourth truth of civil society in he election she would have been a natural choice. But she has been a prisoner of elitist sophistication when the world has been facing the most dangerous challenge from new terrorism . A common man knows sophistication s useful wen he is certainly safe but her the case is different he is  uncertainly safe. At this juncture poet philosophers and traditional politics cant ensure civil society. The ruler must be daring and he should be connected to realties of life. Trump’s non seriousness  diminished with voters added value in his social philosophy.
After 9/11 the US democracy tryst with some unusual things. It elected a Black its president with his indirect connection with Islam. A noble, gentle, philosopher Obama has been liked by the world for not fueling fire in the world politics or exhibiting  neo imperialistic  might.  He has also proved himself not unwise as his predecessor George Bush.  But he was elected by the US voters with an idea of reconciliations with Islamic world. While voting for him every White linked his vote to constructive and productive negotiation with forces of Islam. Therefore Obama’s election has symbolic importance far substantive resolution of conflicts. But the forces of Medievalism emanating from Islamic ideology made him to fail. Their unfailing and undiminished zeal for destruction made Obama   a unutilitarian  President. Eight years in the office is not a small achievement for any  individual if he is a visionary and decisive.
This experiment failed  and the voters elected a realist. It is  a mandate to fight against jihad without any diplomatic ambiguities and guilt conscience.  Trump’s victory is for a broad alliance  to end  terrorism. It is also rejection of  unsubstantive definition of old secularism which evolved during religious battles and sectarian violence (Protestants s Catholics) . Time and forces of conflicts have changed  also there is change in human consciousness which is not dependent now on  a few social scientists , JS Mill, Harold Laski , Hegel to guide the masses. Days of pedagogical leadership ended. Masses are masters of their  consciousness. NYT and Guardian have to reconcile with the altered realties. Modi and Trump are new leadership to redefine and contextualize old definitions and understandings.  If you understand its good, if refuse to understand changed realities remain unaffected if you remain neutral it will only effect you not the civil society.

No comments: