Boy... That escalated quickly.

          Last week I talked about the post election bitterness from high profile individuals, namely Donald Trump. President Obama's re-election triggered responses from several other celebrities, as a product of social media, and perhaps is illustration of how social media is a factor of how the country has become divided. It appears, however, that social media responses, from high to low profile individuals, are not the only expression of discontent with the election results. More than 100,000 Americans have resorted to another form of protest, and are actively aiming to achieve one goal; secession.

          In her article, published by New York Daily News, Kristin A. Lee reports that more than 100,000 Americans, in more than 20 states, have signed a petition for their respective states to secede from the United States. The petition set in Georgia has even gone as far as invoking civil war, while another argues that "voter fraud has been committed" (Lee, 2012). The petitioners used the federal government's "We the People" website to gain the attention of the Obama administration. Lee describes that the petitions only require 25,000 signatures in order to gain a response from the federal government; and while the many of the petitions have exceeded that number, this initiative's impact exceeds nothing more than an expression of discontent.

          Having surpassed the 25,000 signature threshold, the petitions are entitled to a response from the federal government; however, a response does not encompass the necessity of any form of action. Technically, a press conference held by the president simply stating "too bad", is considered a response. Petitions are not legally binding; therefore, there is no requirement of any action to be taken. Although the overall number of signatures is constantly raising, which is currently nearing the 500,000 mark (, that number is still considered minuscule and do not warrant any restructuring of the of nation's political system. Lee notes that many of these petitions use the same passage from the constitution, ""Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government." (Lee, 2012).

          To my perspective, this passage entitles the right to a revolution if the government harms the form of government, which is the democratic system. An abolishing of the government would be justified if the election victory meant that the president held power despite losing the election.  Furthermore, my question is; how has this election become destructive towards the integrity of the democratic system? Obama and the Democrat party won this election the same way that elections have been won in previous years, and also achieved the popular vote.What entitles these constituents to such a radical restructuring of the political system? Aside from turning this initiative over as a radical right wing over-reaction, it drew my attention to another perspective.

         With the negativity surrounding the election results, perhaps there is not enough emphasis placed upon the House of Representatives and Senate. Although Obama will lead the country for another four years, the Republican party continues to dominate the House of Representatives, while the senate is virtually split even. Not only are these reactions over-reactive, but they overlook the bicameral structure of the country's legislature. The Republican members, unsurprisingly, will tend to their Republican constituents, which will maintain the challenges Obama is faced with in decision making. When looking back to other acts, such as DREAM of the Paycheck Fairness (the list can go on), many of these leftist acts which seem to be increasingly feared by Republican supporters, have failed to pass. The reaction to invoke secession seems to stir the impression that Obama has become an absolute dictator, but there is no doubt that the president will continue to face tough challenges ahead, especially with the "fiscal cliff" looming the near future. Obama may have retained the leadership role, but his ability to impose his entire plan upon the government is far from guaranteed.

References

Lee, Kristin A. 2012. "After President Obama's election victory, surge in petitions to secede from United States - including one for New York State". The New York Daily Times. web.

Trump, Twitter, and Hate.

            After a seemingly endless campaign for both sides, Obama’s victory on Tuesday night to withhold his presidency for another four years was a massive relief for democrats. For many voters and spectators, another sense of relief came in hopes that the most negative campaign battle in history has come to an end; no more mud-slinging attack ads, and no more viral negativity throughout the internet. At least that’s what I was thinking until Donald Trump took to twitter to announce his discontent with Obama’s election victory [along with others such as Bill O’Reilly, Karl Rover, and Ted Nugent]. Discontent, however, may be a euphemism. Outrage may be a more appropriate description of his expression towards the results. It appears, at least for another day, that although the race is over, the negativity of the campaigns is still ringing throughout social media and can’t seem to find its way out of the internet; and Donald Trump’s hair.

            Shortly after his tirade on twitter, the billionaire real estate mogul salvaged whatever logic he had left in his perception to the public eye and deleted his twitter posts. But the most haunting consequence of the internet, and social media, is that once something is posted, it will be permanently recorded somewhere in the darkest recesses of the internet. Trump’s twitter posts, however, did not require a thorough search through the archives, as various news networks immediately reported his comments. Trump expressed his perceived displeasure with the nation’s democratic system by stating, “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy”, and with a follow-up comment describing “more votes equals a loss...revolution” (Wing, 2012). Clearly, Trump was not aware that Obama had actually won the popular vote; it was only all over the election’s news coverage. The revolutionary talk did not stop there as Trump continued to urge his twitter followers to “march on Washington and stop this travesty” (McIntyre, 2012). 

            This post election mud-slinging is a sound reflection of what this campaign battle mainly consisted of. The negativity of the advertisements, whether they were on the television, public areas, or the internet, voters and spectators could not ignore the inescapable attack ads all over the media. The spike in negativity, in my perspective, is a product of the increasing inclusion of social media in the campaigns. In a broad sense, you could even speak of Obama’s campaign and social media almost synonymously. Although the presidential race four years ago was no stranger to its share of internet use, social media has certainly expanded even more throughout these past years. As opposed to a decade ago, the internet has become an extremely prominent field for campaign material and attack ads. Videos from both President Obama and Governor Romney’s campaigns went viral, most notably the “47% video” of Mitt Romney. While the internet provides an accessible source of media to the far majority of the population, releasing videos in the favor of a campaign to the mass public is no longer a challenge. As opposed to bidding for the appropriate commercial air times on the right television networks and hoping the viewership will be high, the viral videos are essentially accessible at any time. To put it bluntly, the increase of internet access and social media has made it easier to spread negativity.

In regards to Trump’s situation with twitter, it highlights the access of an instant handheld press release, whereas a decade ago, Trump would’ve had to make his comments to a reporter, interviewer, or set up a press conference. In my perspective, the time and effort it would’ve taken to release his statements to the public a decade ago, the billionaire entrepreneur likely would have had the chance to think twice before he made those statements, or at least re-word them; however, having access to a high profile press release at the palm of his hands probably provided temptation, and most importantly, the ability to quickly express his outrage. The keyword I would use to describe the effect that social media, and the internet, has had on this presidential race is vulnerability. It made Romney’s statements of the 47% of the American population viral, it made Obama’s campaign’s twitter account a continuing news feed of attacks on Romney; and as Trump’s twitter tirade on Tuesday reminded me, it provided the field for citizens to join the campaigns of negativity.

Clearly, the country is divided, and perhaps that is an equal factor contributing to the animosity between to the two parties during this election race. Another perspective we could argue is that the increasing use of social media, like I’ve explained above, has actually contributed to the factor of the country dividing. Perhaps the division of the country and social media should not be thought of as parallel factors behind this race, but as synonymous factors behind the negativity. The interesting question to look forward to is whether the continuing growth of social media will further enhance the negativity and animosity in the next presidential race in 2016.

References

Kingsly, Patrick. 2012. "Donald Trump and Karl Rove lead calls for revolution". The Guardian. web.

McIntyre, Marina. 2012. "Donald Trump launches Twitter tirade over Barack Obama's victory". The Guardian. web.

Wing, Nick. 2012. "Donald Trump: Election Is 'Total Sham And A Travesty,' Suggests 'Revolution' Is Necessary". The Huffington Post. web.