Donald Trump engaged with many issues that, at the margin, largely had been ignored in course of the eight years that preceded his tenure as President of the United States of America.
Issues engaged with by Trump are inclusive of:
North Korea’s belligerence.
America giving up too much to the rest of the world for facilitation of prosperity of rest of the world, as such inducing impoverishment of some segment of America.
The attitude on part of the moderate Muslim that terrorism is ‘America’s problem’, as opposed to joint problem of the moderate Muslim and other well meaning persons everywhere.
Many of the issues that Trump engaged with were deserving of utmost vigorous attention.
While Trump engaged with many deserving issues, he failed at placement of the issues ahead of his persona.
With respect to North Korea, having diplomats negotiate all of the thorny issues, as opposed to direct engagement between himself and his North Korean counterpart, would have had much higher probability of success.
With focus on international relations, interactions with China, the European Union, NATO etc. ought to have been focused on necessity of renegotiation for maintenance of long-term viability of partnerships, as opposed to threats that America could choose to forge ahead alone.
For inducement of a change in attitude of moderate Muslims, it perhaps was not bans on entry into the USA from certain countries that was necessary, but rather, first, institution of mechanisms, which minimize the probability that a Muslim who regards adherence to other religions an act worthy of death does not gain entry into the United States of America; and second, penalties for Islamic organizations that encourage or facilitate entry of such persons into the USA.
It is matter of fact that Trump engaged with some lofty ideals. It also is matter of fact that, somehow, he was unable to place resolution of the ideals ahead of his persona.
Now then, we come face to face with the same Mirror into which Trump looked for discovery of issues that have need of resolution.
Donald Trump came away from that Mirror encasing issues that were identified in his specific personality; that is, insisting, not on the rightmost path to resolution, but on the path that best suited his personality.
If, subsequent to Trump’s tenure, all we arrive at is comparisons of ‘Democratic’ and ‘Republican’ solutions to America’s problems, well, we also look in the Mirror, and regardless of all of the criticisms of Donald Trump, arrive at exactly the same error — encasing of solutions to challenges that face America in our respective personalities or philosophies.
Solutions that primarily are, Democratic or Republican; Heterosexual or Gay; Male or Female; Big Government versus Small Government only emphasize divisions, inherently lack capacity for inducement of sustainable progressiveness of all of society.
Do I then assert irrelevance of philosophies?
Essence of heterogeneity of philosophies is not insistence on some specific philosophy, but arrival at absence of blindsiding of policies to welfare of some constituents of society. Ideally, philosophies serve as robustness checks on policies to be adopted by government, not as ‘end-alls’ to ailments of society.
Ideally, accounting for heterogeneity of philosophies ensures policies reflect the composite that is all of society, as opposed to a reflection of some niche segment of society.
If we are to both look into the Mirror and do better than Donald Trump, we must focus on arrival at rightmost paths to resolving of challenges that face the United States of America, as opposed to implementation of our specific pet philosophies.
It would be a waste to vote Donald Trump out of office, yet arrive at exactly the same outcome, namely, embedding of issues of importance in our respective subjective personalities and personification of truth.
How do we know that there exist objective solutions, which perhaps, are conglomeration of all of the different available philosophies and personalities?
Well, once we define ‘4’, that is, ‘an objective’, and require equality of tools for arrival at a solution, we arrive at restriction of ourselves to either of 1+1+1+1=4, or 2+2=4. Given 2+2=4 is more parsimonious, ideally, we ought to prefer 2+2=4 as rightmost objective path for arrival at ‘4’.
‘2+2’ is better answer than ‘1+1+1+1’, because it is easier and cheaper to acquire and combine 2 units of 2 factors than it is to acquire and combine 1 unit each of 4 factors for arrival at same objective.
If ‘4’ is the answer that is sought, and it is required that components of ‘4’ be equal, it is objective that, ‘2+1’ is wrong answer; and ‘2+2’ is better answer than ‘1+1+1+1’.
The question is:
Do we love America enough to seek the rightmost solutions, as opposed to solutions that seem to gratify the person — our person — that we see in the Mirror?
If we all look in the Mirror, and all we seek to see is our own specific reflection, as opposed to a reflection of all of the composition and diversity that is America, well then we end up at that ominous question, which is:
Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who is the fairest in the land?
We all know just how well that ended.
An America in which everyone asks “who is the fairest in the land?” is an America that ends up not working for anyone except the already rich.
It is straightforward, to wit, if the ‘already rich’ and the ‘not-so-rich’ compete at “who is the fairest in the land?”, the outcome of the contest always easily is predictable.
Only one winner emerges from such a contest — exacerbation of income and social inequality.
If we seek to make the most of the time, we seek not to demonstrate that our own selves are the fairest in the land, rather seek to make America the ‘fairest in the land’, a model of economic and social prosperity for the rest of the world. Clearly, it would be a travesty to waste the opportunity that currently presents itself.
Well then, Mirror, Mirror on the wall, how exactly do we make America the fairest in the land?