You Can’t Have Your Denial and Electability Too
Let's talk about the nature of reality for a moment. In the grand scheme of democracy, it's like a common language we all agree to use. We might have differing opinions and beliefs, but we can all concur on some fundamental truths. This consensus forms the foundation upon which we conduct our discussions, resolve our debates, and finally make our collective decisions. An erosion of this mutual understanding could undermine our democratic structure itself.
That leads us to the proverbial elephant in the room – the ex-President Donald Trump's persistent declaration that he didn't lose the 2020 election. Let's assume for a moment that he genuinely believes this – a presumption that could potentially exonerate him from criminal intent regarding the January 6 indictments. This acceptance could prompt us to confront a far-reaching and disquieting query: Can a leader who turns a blind eye to evidence-based facts be deemed fit for office in a democracy?
An examination of global politics provides a somewhat disconcerting response. The likes of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un retain their grip on power precisely by dismissing the standard norms of reality. They fabricate their own set of "facts", smudging the distinction between truth and deception until they become virtually inseparable. In such regimes, objective reality is distorted to fit the leaders' narrative, leaving no room for opposition, examination, or accountability.
Dictators can afford to manipulate reality to suit their whims. However, in a democracy, this approach is fundamentally at odds. Rejecting factual evidence and truth doesn't merely discredit the individual; it gnaws at the core of our democratic society, destroying the shared perception of reality that enables us to unite and make collective decisions.
Let's reflect on Trump's denial of the 2020 election's results. Our democracy heavily hinges on the peaceful handover of power, an understanding that when the electoral process is carried out with fairness and transparency, its results are accepted by all parties as legitimate. This tacit agreement, affirmed by acknowledging the winner and conceding defeat gracefully, is the lifeblood of our democracy.
Nevertheless, by negating the reality of his loss, Trump not only instilled doubt about the legitimacy of his successor, but he also cast a shadow of uncertainty over the whole electoral process. The shockwaves of this denial continue to resonate, with a troubling number of citizens questioning our democratic system's integrity.
And this denial extends beyond the election. His disregard for scientific advice during the COVID-19 pandemic, his consistent denial of climate change despite compelling evidence, and his dismissal of expert opinions from advisors and Cabinet members he selected that challenged his perspectives all point to a risky pattern of rejecting evidence-based truths. These aren't simply matters of personal belief; they are critical issues impacting millions of Americans and people globally.
So, is a leader of such nature fit to be President in a democracy? The answer must be an emphatic no. Democracy cannot thrive amidst denial and disinformation. It blossoms where truth is embraced, evidence is respected, and a diversity of views are actively engaged in the marketplace of ideas.
Being a leader in a democracy means truly hearing, understanding, and accepting the world as it truly is, not as one would prefer it to be. It requires humility to accept one's errors and flexibility to pivot when facts and evidence call for a course correction.
As we prepare for future elections, we need to remember this. We can't cling to denial and still be electable. For our democracy's well-being, we need to insist on leaders who confront the truth, even when it's uncomfortable. Leaders who appreciate the shared reality upon which our democratic processes rest. If we don't, we risk veering towards a world where leaders mold their own realities, without any checks or challenges.