HUNDYSPOT.COM

Part One: Introduction        

Although social movements and social movement theory continue to gain greater prominence within the social sciences, what precisely constitutes a social movement appears to still some lack clarity.[1] While a social movement could be generally classified as a collective, organized, sustained and non-institutional challenge to authorities or power holders of society, this definition lacks a certain nuance which is needed to more accurately capture the essence of many social movements, particular new social movements which in contrast to their predecessors are not focused on the quest for material goods, but rather on the quest for reform in terms of human/civil rights extension. For example, witnessing the emergence of the organization Black Lives Matter (BLM) which manifested in 2014 in the wake of several African American deaths at the hands of various law enforcement groups throughout the United States, one might at first glance find it difficult to classify it as a social movement, particularly given the generality of the preceding social movement definition and  could attempt to argue that members of BLM instead of being part of a social movement, could be part of a protest, mass riots, or something else.

While the field of social movements is still evolving there have been certain contributions to the field over the years that have expanded the understanding of social movements and made it easier to gauge which new social uprisings could be classified as social movements. Among these contributions three in particular have emerged which taken together can serve as a sort of defacto social movement test. From these contributions and under the proposed scheme, social movements could be said to have three distinct characteristics; 1) the presence of a collective grievance, 2) some level of resources, and 3) political opportunity. In addition, Doug McAdam’s seminal work regarding cognitive liberation has enforced the notion that at a certain point during the struggle of changing the existing political narrative, participants of social movements also reach a state where they feel that participation in a movement is both important and integral to achieving the desire end. Although a cursory comparison of these social movement elements with BLM might lead some to conclude that any ambiguity surrounding its classification as a social movement can be safely negated, without a detailed look at each element one is left to ponder if it really does? In this work it is argued that the Black Lives Matter movement can be classified as a social movement as it not only passes any generic interpretations of social movements, but embodies several key elements of social movement advanced by the contemporary scholarship in the field as well. Therefore, after examining Black Lives Matter in greater detail including how it relates to the social movements elements of collective grievance, resources, and political opportunity and how its members do indeed a achieve a state of cognitive liberation, it becomes apparent that BLM is without question a social movement.

Part Two: Collective Grievance

Classical social movement theories propose that, “people participate in protest to express their grievances stemming from relative deprivation, frustration, or perceived injustice.”[2]     Given America’s history if ever African Americans had a grievance to express it would relate to how they have been treated over time because despite its recognition as a democratic powerhouse and leader in human rights, the United States has unfortunately also had a rich history of racism and discrimination throughout its existence. Not only was slavery a given right of the white majority for a significant portion of its post-Independence history, even after slavery’s abolition in 1864 white superiority and privilege formally continued for more than a century as Jim Crow laws and other forms of segregation between whites and blacks continued to entrench America’s discriminatory narrative. When the civil rights protests of the 1960s finally laid the foundation for the elimination of institutionalized discrimination against African Americans and other visible minorities, it was thought that the road to a racism free and equity based America was finally on the horizon. Unfortunately, while the letter of the law had been slowly transformed into one of inclusivity, the road to true equality has been hampered due to the spirit of discrimination that has continued to haunt the United States.

It could be argued that of all the manifestations of discrimination that continue to plague the United States perhaps none is more prominent than those that exist within the criminal justice system. Not only are African Americans incarcerated at rates 20% harsher than whites for the same crimes,[3] but incidents of police abuse and brutality have remained one of the most prominent forms of institutional discrimination since the civil rights era, and continue to be cited by various civil rights organizations as a chief barrier to racial equality. And while one may think that racism and violent interactions with police officers transpire in rural communities or pockets or the former Jim Crow states, this is simply not true as some of the most egregious engagement between law enforcement and the black community in metropolitan urban centres across the United States. From the violent 1979 killing of Arthur McDuffie at the hands of Miami police officers which would set off the 1980 Miami riots when they were acquitted,[4] to the brutal assault of Rodney King by a number of white Los Angeles police officers which prompted the 1992 LA riots where over 50 people were killed in the 6 days of rioting,[5]  to the 1996 shooting death of unarmed 18 year old Tyron Lewis by white police officers which would serve as the basis for the 1996 race riots in St. Petersburg Florida,[6] to the fact that the City of Chicago has paid over half a billion dollars since 2004 to settle legal actions brought against for police brutality,[7] clearly indicates that there is indeed a nationwide issue with respect to minority abuse at the hands by various law enforcement agencies and officers which remains. And while civil rights activists have highlighted that this has always been a chronic institutional problem, it was not until a recent spate of highly prominent and deadly incidents between African Americans and law enforcement[8] in quick succession that the narrative of sporadic reactive protest in response to abuse would morph into an ever present, active, organization of peoples that demanded change to the existing political system regarding race relations between police and minorities. Enter Black Lives Matter.

Following the February 26, 2012 shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford Florida by a self-righteous neighbourhood watch coordinator named George Zimmerman and Zimmerman’s eventual acquittal of second degree murder racial tensions between the black community and law enforcement began to rise.[9] As news of the incident spread coupled with the fact that law enforcement initially choose not to charge Zimmerman with any crime at the time of the incident despite the facts surrounding the incident including the fact that Zimmerman was emphatically told by 911 dispatch not to further profile or engage Martin, nationwide outrage began to percolate.[10] After Zimmerman’s acquittal many had expected that this might result in concentrated racial unrest similar to the 1992 LA riots or the 1980 Miami riots before them, however the reaction this time was far less concentrated and scattered instead with fairly innocuous protests across the United States. However, in addition to occupying physical spaces, reaction to Zimmerman’s acquittal was also rampant online and via social media. In fact, it was via social media that Black Lives Matter would find its genesis.

As part of her reaction to what she believe was a miscarriage of justice following Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict, BLM founder Alisha Garza would post to her Facebook page an impassioned plea which centred on the message that the lives of black people had worth and  highlighted that, “our lives, black lives matter”.[11] This post was subsequently hashtaged #blacklivesmatter and received added support by two other individuals who would also be recognized as BLM founders, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. Subsequently the post would become the basis for a powerful online campaign centred around the collective grievances of police abuse and institutionalized racism that many would recognize as a social movement.[12] Although Black Lives Matter commenced with tremendous momentum due to the power of social media and the visceral reactions had George Zimmerman’s acquittal, one can wonder if it would have maintained its traction had it not been for a quick succession of further incidents involving African American deaths at the hands of law enforcement officials. Perhaps the most prominent of such incidents involved the August 9, 2014 shooting death of 18 year old Ferguson, Missouri native Michael Brown who was shot to death following an encounter with a white police officer Darren Wilson wherein several witnesses claimed Brown had his hands up and his back to the officer at the time he was shot.[13] According to autopsy reports following examination of the young man’s body, it was determined that Brown was shot over six times including the fatal shot to his head and officials investigating the incident determined that Wilson had fired approximately twelve rounds at the unarmed Brown. In this case public reaction and protest was almost immediate and became only further exacerbated after a Grand Jury returned a decision in November of 2014 not to prosecute Wilson for Brown’s death.[14] Although the rage surrounding Brown’s death was widespread, Black Lives Matter gained a foothold in both organizing and executing mass protest as the group planned its first in person and on the ground protest in the form of a “freedom ride” to Ferguson with a long and sustained peaceful protest envisioned. After greatly increasingly their visibility at the forefront of Ferguson, the group proceeded to further establish themselves as the preeminent forum for African American activism and would go on to stage protests in numerous locales around the United States in pursuit of advocating for their chief cause, calling for change in how law enforcement interact with minorities while simultaneously demanding authorities to examine systemic racism and equity.[15] As such it is important to recognize that while changing the current narrative with respect to police brutality might the groups most prominent point of contention, BLM also has social goals which go beyond respectability politics to broader needs of the African American community including access to shelter, food, and mobility.[16]

Although racial inequality and institutional injustice have been common elements in United States throughout its history and the fact that several communities across the country have sporadically experienced social unrest in the wake of perceived atrocities against African Americans and other minorities throughout the years, in the wake of a rash of deadly encounters with police, Black Lives Matter would become something different. More specifically, BLM appears to have morphed from an online campaign calling for compassion in one instance, to a group that emphasized a collective grievance and expanded beyond forms of reactive protest (such as those of riots past) to one of the preeminent drivers of organized, sustained, and collective action for the African American community and minorities seeking racial equality and institutional safety in the contemporary period.[17] A year after the death of Michael Brown what one participant noted was that BLM was instrumental in keeping the activism surrounding Brown’s death going while also organizing several other protests as well.[18] Since 2014 Black Lives Matter has protested the deaths of several  black people who died following interactions with law enforcement including Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Sandra Bland and Tamir Rice, to name a few.[19]

Part Three: Resources

The second element thought to be integral for social movement classification is that of resources. In their seminal piece entitled Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory John D. McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald highlight that the availability of resources explained much of the variation in the level of mobilization across various movements.[20] More profoundly they state that resource issues are more indicative than collective grievance as the authors highlight that empirical evidence renders doubt surrounding the assumption of a close link between pre-existing discontent and generalized beliefs in the rise of social movement phenomena.[21] These insights by McCarthy and Zald underscore the essence of resource mobilization theory wherein it is theorized that the growth and success of the (social) movement requires obtaining control over resources in order to achieve collection action and the ultimate goals of the group sought. With respect to the resources themselves it is important to note that they can constitute a variety of things ranging from money, capital, and materials to people, services, skills, and knowledge. It is also important to note that these resources can be accumulated in a number of ways be they derived from activists, constituents, or other organizations such as churches, interests groups, charitable foundations, or unions.

In gauging resource mobilization theory and the holding that resources are a key component of social movements in relation to Black Lives Matter, it would indeed appear that the concepts align. More specifically, not only does BLM have an impressive number of participants across the United States including at least 12 national chapters (and has even gone international with membership extending across the globe), it has been stated that the organization is financially solid as many members and chapters are either successfully self-funded or have received financial contributions from various left-leaning donors[22]  as the group continues to grow and cement its position as social activism powerhouse (it has been rumoured that billionaire George Storas has alone given 33 million to the group).[23] However, given the nature of the activism which consists of rallies, discussions with government officials, online blogs, freedom rides, and interrupting various political events, the group does not require a tremendous amount of monetary capital to execute the type of activism it employs.[24] As such, while resource opportunity theory might suggest that social movements need money, this minimal reliance on monetary means by BLM bodes well for the group’s long-term prospects as the threat from financial insolvency or disruption in funding would appear to have little impact on the its ability to function in the manner it does. In addition, because many members and chapters of BLM appear to prefer self-funding, this minimizes the chances and danger that leaders or whole chapters would could be financially co-opted or brought under the sphere of influence of outside forces that might seek to compromise BLM goals.[25]

Part Four: Political Opportunity

            According to political opportunity theory it is argued that the success or failure of social movements are primarily affected by political opportunities. More specifically, political opportunity structure/theory is built on the premise that “exogenous factors enhance or inhibit prospects for mobilization, for particular sorts of claims to be advanced rather than others, for particular strategies of influence to be exercised, and for movements to affect mainstream institutional politics and policy.”[26] What are these political opportunities? It is postulated that they arise when an existing political system is vulnerable to a challenge or change and in this vulnerable state it allows opportunities for the socially dissatisfied to exploit the weakness in the status quo in order to realize a desired social change or demand. Often this vulnerability can arise from such things as a decline in government repression, a rise in the public consciousness, division amongst elites, or various domestic or international economic factors. However, while activists according to political opportunity theory are dependent on political opportunities within the larger existing political system in order to effect change, also important is the limiting effect of political opportunity structures (POS) that can limit collective group action regardless of vulnerabilities in the existing system. In this vein POS can refer to constraints, possibilities, and threats that can originate outside or inside the mobilizing group and limits chances of mobilizing and effecting the change it seeks. More specifically, structural characteristics of political systems, the behaviour of certain individuals (allies, adversaries, public), societal tendencies, economic structures and developments are all examples of potential limiting factors for political mobilization or sources that can reinforce it. After assessing the criteria of political opportunity against BLM it would appear that BLM is also consistent with this social movement element. More specifically not only has BLM emerged following the outrage following the numerous deadly incidents involving African Americans and law enforcement, but have utilized the opportunity afforded them in the higher public consciousness surrounding police brutality to advocate for change through a variety of different (and largely non-conventional) means that include social media posts, freedom rides, sustained nationwide protest events, crashing/heckling politicians they deem reinforcing the existing political system, and group meetings with various government officials including President Obama.[27][28]

Part Five: Cognitive Liberation

In his seminal 1982 book entitled, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, social movement scholar Doug McAdam analyzed the rise and decline of the US Civil Rights Movement and attributed its course as the result of three factors: political opportunities, indigenous opportunity strength, and cognitive liberation.[29] Although political opportunities (greater opportunity or receptivity to change demands) and indigenous opportunity strength (the ability of challengers to mobilize and take advantage of political opportunity in an attempt to facilitate change) are related concepts that other scholars in the field have also broached, it is McAdam’s cognitive liberation concept that is perhaps most intriguing. It has been argued that once the other elements of social movements have been met-collective grievance, resources, and political opportunity- that members of movements soon realize a sense of cognitive liberation, or a feeling that their participation is an important factor in destabilizing a current political system that lacks legitimacy and/or that is discriminatory.[30] Put another way cognitive liberation can, “denote a challengers’ subjective experiences of shifting political conditions given them a new sense of efficacy”, or even more simply, it is the ability of participants to recognize the strength they hold and allows them to exploit political opportunities to (attempt to) effect change. As such, cognitive liberation allows members the feeling that they can affect change which in turn allows them to mobilize and recruit new members. Relating the concept of cognitive liberation to BLM it would appear that in this respect as well there is much consistency. Not only have BLM members recognized a flaw in the existing political system with respect to law enforcement-African American minority relations and their primary goal is to alter the unjust and discriminatory aspect of this dynamic, but group members also recognize the importance that their efforts and collective activism has in achieving this end. For example, in discussing the important role BLM participants had in attempting to facilitate change via their opportunity to discuss their grievances with President Obama, member Brittany Packnett states, “”We were responsible in that moment to speak truths about our community to the leader of the free world, and that was a real opportunity, but it was also a real responsibility.”[31] Arguably if ever there was a statement that captured the essence of McAdam’s cognitive liberation, Packnett’s was it.

Part Six: Conclusion

            After examining Black Lives Matter in greater detail including how it relates to the social movements elements of collective grievance, resources, and political opportunity it becomes apparent that BLM is without question a social movement. In addition to aligning with generic definitions of social movements, BLM also is consistent with the added dimensions and nuance of social movements forwarded by several contemporary scholars. In addition, BLM members and the groups as a whole appear to have also attained cognitive liberation, in that the group participants feel they can effect change and do so by taking advantage of the political opportunities that have arisen due to the outrage and changing political narrative regarding a recent succession of African American deaths at the hands of law enforcement. It is almost as if the public conscious has said enough, the existing political system is vulnerable to change, and BLM has become a powerful force through which political opportunities are engaged and attempts at change are affected. Not only has Black Lives Matter become recognized as one of the preeminent forces in racial equality activism in 21^st century America, but this achievement is remarkable given the relative infancy of the group and that it can be traced back to a single online campaign and social media post. However, despite its impressive results thus far, as any student of social movements is aware there are several forces, both structural and not, that will become greater obstacles as the movement moves past infancy. If Jonathan Christiansen and his four stages of social movements are correct (emergence, coalescence, bureaucratization, and decline), no matter the positive results or prominence it currently enjoys, BLM is destined to enter a final downward trajectory phase.[32] While its progression through Christiansen’s four stages may be inevitable, that does not necessarily mean failure as the group’s decline could be the result of success, or more specifically, successfully having achieved its end by positively reforming the manner in which law enforcement (and the criminal justice system as a whole) interact with minorities and also having forced institutions to effectively examine systemic racism and equity issues.

Ultimately only time will tell whether Black Lives Matter succeeds in attaining its goals, remains in a diminished capacity, or fails outright, but given the stakes one can only  hope that BLM leaders are conscious of the forces working against them and can devise an ambitious and diversified action plan that will allow them to continue their work in a manner that both counteracts the exterminating elements of these forces and allows them to successfully change the existing political system long before the group begins its downward spiral.

Bibliography

Ancelovici, Marcos. “Esquisse d’une theorie de la Contestation: Bourdieu et le modele du processus politique” Sociologie et Societe Vol XLI. 2, pp. 39-60

Christiansen, Johnathan. “Four Stages of Social Movements” Online: EBSCO Research Starters, 2009, available at: https://www.ebscohost.com/uploads/imported/thisTopic-dbTopic-1248.pdf

Diani, Mario. “The Concept of Social Movement” The Sociological Review  0038-0261/4001-00 (1992), pp. 1-25

Futrell, Robert. “Framing Processes, Cognitive Liberation, and NIMBY Protest in the U.S. Chemical-Weapons Disposal Conflict” Sociological Inquiry Vol. 73, No. 3 (August 2003), pp. 359-386

Garcia, Jennifer Jee-Lyn and Mienah Zulfacar. “Black Lives Matter: A Commentary on Racism and Public Health” American Journal of Public Health Vol 105, No. 8 (August 2015), pp. 27-31

Hooghe, Marc. “Ethnic Organizations and Social Movement Theory: The Political Opportunity Structure for Ethnic Mobilisation in Flanders” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 31, No. 5 (September 2005), pp. 975-990

McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 82, No. 6 (May, 1977), pp. 1212-1241

Meyer, David S. and Debra C. Minkoff. “Conceptualizing Political Opportunity” Social Forces 82(4) (June 2004), pp. 1457-1492

Ransby, Barbara. “The Class Politics of Black Lives Matter” Dissent Vol. 62, Issue 4, (Fall 2015), pp. 31-34

Richardson, Susan Smith. “Making Black Lives Matter” Nieman Reports Vol. 69, Issue 2, (Spring 2015), pp. 26-31

Stekelenburg, Jacquelin Van and Bert Klandermans. “The Social Psychology of Protest” Current Sociology 2013 61(5-6) (March 2013), pp. 886-905

Williams, Gregory P. “When Opportunity Structure Knocks: Social Movements in the Soviet Union and Russian Federation” Social Movement Studies Vol. 9, No. 4 (November 2010), pp. 443-460

Zhao, Dingxin. “Ecologies of Social Movements: Student Mobilization during the 1989 Prodemocracy Movement in Beijing” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 103, No. 6 (May 1998), pp. 1493-1529

“Chicago Pays Millions but Punishes Few in Killings by Police” Online: New York Times, 2015, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/us/chicago-pays-millions-but-punishes-few-in-police-killings.html?_r=0

“March 3, 1991: Rodney King LAPD Beating Caught on Video” Online: CBS News, 2016, available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/march-3rd-1991-rodney-king-lapd-beating-caught-on-video/

“McDuffie Riots: Revisting, Retelling Story-35 Years Later” Online: Miami Herald, 2015, available at:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article21178995.html

“How a Death in Ferguson Sparked a Movement in America” Online: CBS News, 2015, available at:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-black-lives-matter-movement-changed-america-one-year-later/

“What Happened in Ferguson?” Online: New York Times, 2015, available at:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0

“Racial Gap in Men’s Sentencing” Online: Wall Street Journal, 2013, available at:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002

“Decision in St. Petersburg Riot Case Sparks New Clashes” Online: Los Angeles Times, 1996, available at: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-11-14/news/mn-64693_1_race-riot

“Political Process Theory” Online: Blackwell Reference Online, 2007, available at:

http://nealcaren.web.unc.edu/files/2012/05/Political-Process-Theory-_-Blackwell-Encyclopedia-of-Sociology-_-Blackwell-Reference-Online.pdf

“No George Soros Didn’t Give 33 Million to #BlackLivesMatter” Online: The Daily Beast, 2015,  available at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/19/no-george-soros-didn-t-give-33-million-to-blacklivesmatter.html

“Trayvon Marin Shooting Fast Facts” Online: CNN, 2016, available at: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/

“Major Donors Consider Funding Black Lives Matter” Online: Politico, 2016, available at:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/major-donors-consider-funding-black-lives-matter-215814

Introduction

            Israel is often billed as one of the few democratic places in the Middle East. In fact, according to several scholars and experts Israel is perhaps the lone spots of democratic hope in sea of authoritarian rule.[1] While it is true that Israel is modeled in large part on Western parliamentary systems, given its exclusive nature and the lack of basic rights and fundamental freedoms many of its (Palestinian) inhabitants are denied one would be hard pressed to qualify Israel as truly democratic region especially under the contemporary understanding of democracy within the field of comparative politics. For example, while Israel institutions encompass executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and its parliamentary figures are subject to electoral selection, many people within its borders are deliberately excluded in taking part in elections.[2] In addition to limited voting rights, given the expanded scope of democracy to include civil liberties and the work of various comparative politics scholars in the field of hybrid regimes such as Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way with their piece entitled Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War[3] as well as Gilbert and Mohseni with their piece entitled Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes,[4] it would appear that functionally Israel is not as close to being a democracy under any sort of rational contemporary definition as it would perhaps like to be given the limited rights afford to many of the people residing within its borders, including Arab Palestinians, Christian Palestinians, and other non-Jewish denominations. For example, in their work entitled, Measuring Effective Democracy: The Human Empowerment Approach,[5] authors Christian Welzel and Amy C. Alexander utilize a popular rights and rule of law based approach to gauge what they call “effective democracy” for 150 states (including Israel).[6] After analyzing the results they found that when combining political rights, personal rights, procedural regularity, and tamed corruption to formulate an effective democracy gauge,  Israel significantly trails the exclusive group of democratic leaders, nations like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland, who are near the top in the effective democracy rankings while also trailing other prominent democratic nations like Germany, the United States, Belgium, France, and Japan.[7]

However, although Israel might not currently fit well under a contemporary definition of democracy in the political sense, there are numerous political parties, interest groups, and activists currently pushing for change towards a more inclusive and just society where (Jewish) Israelis and Palestinians can co-exist in a more equitable state. In fact, many of these voices come from the Israelis themselves and can be normally found formally within  numerous liberal and left-of-centre political parties within the State of Israel such as the Zionist Union, Kulanu, and Meretz parties. In addition to certain political parties and other formal structures, although Israel is often demonized for its approach to the Palestinians and Palestinians routinely vilified as violent intolerant persons who desire nothing more than to terrorize Israelis, this could not be further from the truth as the majority of both people’s in actuality desire a peaceful coexistence with the other and this fact has been confirmed by several political scholars and comprehensive studies.[8][9][10][11][12]Unfortunately, the voice of the people has not been translated into results as Israel’s leadership under prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the right wing Likud party has been criticized around the world for hindering the peace process with both inflammatory rhetoric and divisive against the Palestinian people which denies basic human rights to many, distances Israel from true democratic status (especially in the contemporary political sense, alienates them from the international community, and hinders the long term prospects for a sustained peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. As such, the recent 2015 Israeli national election presented itself as an excellent opportunity for change where initial polling indicated that the conservative grip on Israeli politics would soon loosen.

Electoral Model and Party System

            Prior to commencing a detailed analysis into the stakes, expectations, and results of Israel’s 2015 election, it is perhaps prudent to first examine the Israeli electoral system and party system. Israel currently implements a parliamentary system wherein members are selected to a 120 seat parliament, the Knesset.[13] The prime minister is normally the leader of the party that claims the largest number of seats in the Knesset and members of parliament are elected via a (closed) party-list proportional representation for four year terms. As stated by Pippa Norris in her 1997 work entitled Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian, and Mixed  Systems,  “the principle of proportional representation is that the seats in the constituency are divided according to the number of votes casts for party lists,” however she cautions that, “there are considerable variations in how this is implemented in different systems (countries).”[14] More specifically party lists may be open, and in which case voters can select amongst candidates or they may be closed list where voters only select parties and rank them according to preference.

Given the number of political parties that contest in elections and the country’s propensity for coalition governments (perhaps augmented by its PR system), Israel can be considered a competitive multiparty system that favors minority governments that must form coalitions to sustain rule and pass legislation. As previously stated, currently Benjamin Netanyahu of the conservative Likud party serves as prime minister. In addition to the office of prime minister, Israel also has a largely ceremonial president that is elected by the members of the Knesset for a seven-year term.[15] Since 2014 Reuven Rivlin of the Likud party was elected by Knesset members and serves as President. Regarding parliamentary affairs it is also important to note that in 2014 a notable change transpired in parliament wherein the Knesset raised the threshold to attain a seat from 2 percent to 3.25.[16] Given the low electoral threshold to attain representation has normally favored niche parties and led to unstable coalitions the reason for this change could be interpreted as stabilizing government, however many parties, and Arab political parties in particular, found that this change has the defacto result of limiting their opportunities to participate in national level politics.[17] As a result, several opposition parties boycotted the vote which authorized this and other parliamentary changes. With respect to these other amendments they, “limited the number of cabinet ministers to 19, including the prime minister; eliminated minister-without-portfolio positions; changed the no-confidence procedure so that opponents of a sitting government must simultaneously vote in a new one; and altered campaign-funding rules to deter party switching or splintering after elections.”[18]

Although Israel is considered a democracy with fair and free elections there are a number of prohibitions that severely undermine this proposition. For example, the Knesset has a number of caveats, which if violated, prevent political parties from the opportunity to serve in office and they include; negating the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, negating the democratic nature of the State, incitement to racism, and the support of armed struggle against the State of Israel. Although on the surface these appear to be fairly harmonious and perhaps just provisions there is an incredible amount of subjectivity with these provisions that have historically been overlooked when it pertains to (radical) conservative rhetoric and actions  against Arab and Christian Palestinians. For example, the construction and maintenance of the Israeli West Bank Barrier, the policy of unilateral settlement construction in the West Bank, the denial of citizenship and residency status to Palestinian residents of the West Bank or Gaza who are married to Israeli citizens, and the denial of voting rights to Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the occupied territories from voting at the national level (despite the fact that the Oslo Accords state that the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank were to be considered one territorial unit and as such their separation by Ariel Sharon’s unilateral decree in 2005 should not have automatically precluded them from voting in national elections)[19][20] which has the practical effect of denying one in every three who live under Israeli control the right to vote.[21] In a country whose population is currently almost evenly split between Israelis and Palestinians and where Palestinians are projected to become the firm majority in the next 20 years[22] this voting restriction is a very serious indictment against Israeli’s democratic status and again has been highlighted by several scholars and political scientists as undermine the contemporary understanding democracy.[23]

Stakes and Expectations

            Although conservative and divisive forces have ruled Israel for much of the twenty-first century, this in no way indicates that the liberal and inclusive voices that desire equality and peace have been silenced. In addition, to the aforementioned study which continues to highlight the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians desire a harmonious existence with one another, a number of leftist and centre-left political parties, both past and present, have sought the same end. In general these parties have sought to not only extend rights and adopt a more humanitarian approach to Palestinians, but to enter into peace negotiations with the ultimate goal of forging a lasting peace agreement with a two-state solution. It should be noted however that peace and peace-talks with Palestinians are not the only interests of most people within Israel seek, as the economy and a desire to close the gap between the rich and poor has been of great importance. As such,  the current leadership’s focus on potential threats that are often hypothetical, distant, and external were seen as alienating to a large amount of the voting population.[24]

EXPECTATIONS

            Although Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party were initially poised for another conservative victory prior to the March 17th election in early 2015, in the days prior to the election a change in the political landscape began to emerge. With only days before the election a significant drop in support for Netanyahu had Israel poised for its first left-of centre prime minister in 14 years with the Zionist Union poised to claim the largest share of parliament across all political parties. According to the Israeli based i24 news:

Daily Haaretz’s last poll, published Thursday, found that if the election were held today  the  Zionist             Union, headed by Isaac Herzog and ZipiLivni, would win 24 Knesset seats,   while the Likud has lost             two seats since the last survey and is predicted to win only 21  seats. The  Joint (Arab) List gets 13          seats,  which would make it the Knesset’s third-largest party.[25]

In addition, the International Business Times (IBT) citing the Israeli based Haaretz and its election report published two days before the election found that not only had Netanyahu fallen out of favour with the people of Israel, but that he would likely have to resign given the level of seat loss his party would surely experience.[26] Moreover the IBT predicted that a left-leaning coalition led by the Zionist Union would be poised to take control of the Knesset:

It is predicted that the Israel elections 2015 will have a coalition government run by the Zionist Union party, which is an alliance of Israel’s Labor party, led by Herzog, and Livni’s Hatnuah party that backs peace talks with Palestinians…. The mood among the Israeli voters in general is that of a “Bibi (Netanyahu)-fatigue” as he is being seen as a leader disconnected from the daily worries of his people, who are concerned about the economy and the gap between the rich and poor more than the intentions of distant Iran.[27]

In addition to the predictions made by the domestic media, the Huffington Post in the day prior to the election found that Netanyahu was likely to be ousted as prime minister with the left-leaning Zionist Union poised to take the largest share of Knesset seats.[28] As the basis for their prediction they highlighted several local polls taken in the lead up to the March 17^th election:

More than a dozen opinion polls conducted during the final week of the campaign have consistently favored the newly formed Zionist Union party, showing it winning 24 to 25 Knesset seats, with Netanyahu running behind with 21 to 22 seats.[29]

And while both of these seat totals fall short of the 61 needed to form government and a Likud coalition could produce approximately 57 conservative seats, the Huffington Post believed that  should the Zionist Union finish with the highest seat total, that its leader Isaac Herzog would likely get the first chance to assemble a ruling coalition (however they note that that advantage is more customary than automatic).[30]

Results

            Despite the fact that several media outlets, both domestic and international, had predicted a significant reduction in Likud seats and a Zionist Union led coalition taking power, these predictions did not come to pass. Although many assumed Netanyahu’s demise was a foregone conclusion, what these organizations did not account for was the power of demagoguery. More specifically, as Netanyahu perhaps sensing that his demise was imminent he made a last-minute (and desperate) play to hold power by promising that both he and his party would never honor any peace agreements or peace talks with Palestinians and that other political parties would sell out Israeli interests if given the chance.[31][32][33][34] Although many had already concluded that Netanyahu did not have any genuine interest in peacefully ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[35] despite his previous rhetoric and 2009 election promises[36]given the numerous atrocities he and his party have presided over during his tenure, his desperate appeal to fear and incendiary declarations removed all doubt.

In the end the Likud party was able to secure an improbable 30 seats and scraped to power with a 61-59 right-wing coalition which was just enough to take the majority of seats in the Knesset.[37] As expected on the left, the Zionist Union managed to secure 24 seats and become the leading force in the 59 seat opposition. The final seat total for the ten leading political parties according to Haaertz media and the Times of Israel was as follows:

[38]

[39] Results of the 20th Knesset with 99 percent reporting

Conclusion

            Although the 2015 Israeli election afforded the population a real opportunity for change and one that would actually reflect their interests (including the potential for a long term peace with the Palestinian people and a focus on the economy), the opportunity was missed as a desperate appeal to fear and hatred helped eradicate both hope and the collective voice of the majority of people that reside within Israel’s borders. If the Israeli election taught the world anything, it is that demagoguery is still a powerful force and one that still has the ability to cross seemingly insurmountable odds and allow nefarious individuals to take hold of power.

While Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to apologize for his heinous remarks just prior to the 2015 election,[40] not only have these overtures been summarily rejected by Palestinians and other Israelis[41], media organizations around the world have stated that Netanyahu has potentially caused irreparable harm to Israel’s standing in the international community[42] including jeopardizing relations with its long-term ally the United States as Haaertz reports that the United States had been forced to now reassess their alignment with Israel.[43] As such, if one was hoping for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, equality and substantive human rights for all people residing within Israel’s borders, a government focussed on the economy, and a return to progressive and/or liberal politics, they will have to wait. However, if there is a silver lining to the 2015 Israeli election it is that Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party have shown their hand. As such, whether the next election is in the next couple of months or a few years depending on how well the Likud party is able to hold together its slim majority coalition, for those seeking change there is enough time to process and see through Mr. Netanyahu’s inflammatory rhetoric and false promises, and hopefully this time around make a truly informed decision that reflects the true spirit of both the state of Israel and the majority of its peoples.

BOOKS

Bishara, Marwan. Palestine/Israel: Peace or Apartheid (London: Zed Books, 2001)

Carter, Jimmy. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006)

Chomsky, Noam & Ilan Pappe. Gaza in Crisis (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2010)

Cohen, Rich. Israel is Real. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009)

Dershowitz, Alan. The Case for Israel (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2003)

Levitsky & Way, Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War (Cambridge: CUP 2011): Chaps 1&2

Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walk. The Israel Lobby (Toronto: Penguin, 2007)

Said, Edward W. The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1979, 1992)

ARTICLES

“By 2035 By 2035, Jewish population in Israel/Palestine is projected at 46 percent ” Online: Mandoweiss, February 21, 2014, available at:

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/population-israelpalestine-projected/

“Canada’s Prime Minister: A Display of Rare Courage” Online: The Gatestone Institute, 2015, available at: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4140/canada-harper-israel

“Shattered Dreams of Peace” (2014), online: PBS-Frontline

< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oslo/negotiations >

“Israel Elections 2015: Exit Polls Predict Benjamin Netanyahu Ouster” Online: International Business Times, 2015, available at:

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/israel-elections-2015-exit-polls-predict-benjamin-netanyahu-ouster-626285

“Israel: 2015 scores” Online: Freedom House, 2015, available at:

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/israel

“Israeli Election Poll Predicts Possible Changing of the Guard” Online: i24 News, 2015, available at: http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/politics/64035-150312-israeli-election-poll-predicts-possible-changing-of-the-guard

“What the Polls Predict for Israel’s Election” Online: Huffington Post, 2015, available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/israel-2015-election-poll_n_6877250.html

“Benjamin Netanyahu Celebrates Surprise Electoral Landslide in Israel” Online: Telegraph UK, 2015, available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11479349/Benjamin-Netanyahu-celebrates-surprise-electoral-landslide-in-Israel.html

“If I am elected there will be no Palestinian State” Online: Haaretz, 2015, available at: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/1.647212

“Netanyahu Says No to Statehood for Palestinians” Online: New York Times, 2015, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html?_r=0

“On Election Day Netanyahu Warns of Arabs voting in Droves” Online: Washington  Post, 2015, available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/17/on-israeli-election-day-netanyahu-warns-of-arabs-voting-in-droves/

“Obama to Netanyahu: US will reassess Israeli Peace Policy” Online: Haaretz, 2015, available at: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/1.647744

“Netanyahu Says No to Statehood for Palestinians” Online: New York Times, 2015, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html?_r=0

“If I am elected there will be no Palestinian State” Online: Haaretz, 2015, available at: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/1.647212

“The Big Winners and Losers of the Israeli Election’s Final Episode” Online: Haaretz, 2015, available at: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.656592

“Netanyahu Scores Crushing Victory in Israeli Elections” Online: Times of Israel, 2015, http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-claims-victory-as-vote-count-shows-likud-further-ahead/

“Netanyahu Apologies to Israeli Arabs for Election Day Comments” Online: Ynet News, 2015, available at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4640212,00.html

“Binyamin Netanyahu Bids to Form Right-Wing Coalition after Decisive Win” Online: The Guardian, 2015, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/18/israel-election-bibi-victory-binyamin-netanyahu

“Trilateral Statement on the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David” (2003), online: U.S. Department of State-Archieve

< http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22698.htm >

“Survey: Most Israelis, Palestinians, Support Two States” (July 3, 2013), online: Times of Israel

< http://www.timesofisrael.com/survey-most-israelis-palestinians-support-2-states/ >

“Peace Building in Post-Conflict Societies: Processes and Strategies” (2004), online: George Mason University

< http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/hsp/hj.html >

“On International Day U.N. Spotlights Link Between Human Rights and Peace” (September 21, 2008), online: United Nations

< http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28143#.U0QKDF_D-70 >

“Settlement plans threaten renewed hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace, UN envoy warns” (November 13, 2014), online: United Nations

< http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46485#.U_49b1_D9Cp>

“Two-thirds of Israelis support peace with Palestinians that ensures security, polls find” (December 31, 2012), online: The Times of Israel

< http://www.timesofisrael.com/two-thirds-of-israelis-support-peace-with-palestinians-that-ensures-security-polls-find/ >

Moaz, Zeev et. al. “The Liberal Peace: Interdependence, Democracy, and International Conflict, 1950-85” (2014), online: Journal of Peace Research

< http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/33/1/11.short >

Levitsky, Steven and Lucan A. Way, Competitive Authoritarianism: The Emergence and Dynamics of Hybrid Regimes in the Post-Cold War Era (2014), online: Stanford

< http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/24290/Levitsky-Way-Stanford.pdf>

Sheziaf, Noam “Who Gets to Vote in Israel’s Democracy” (October 30, 2012), online: 972 Magazine

< http://972mag.com/who-gets-to-vote-in-israels-democracy/58756/ >

Aronson, Geoffrey, The Middle Eastern conflict after the Arab Spring: the case of Palestine European View, 2011 10: 215-220

Bell, Avi and Dov Shefi,  The mythical post-2005 Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip Israel Affairs Vol. 16, No. 2, April 2010, 268-296

Chamberlin, Paul The Struggle Against Oppression Everywhere: The Global Politics of Palestinian Liberation Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 47, No. 1, 25-41, January 2011

Emery, Alan and Donald Will, Liberation movements, universal citizenship and the resolution of the ethno-national conflict: ANC non-racialism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Third World Quarterly, 2014 Vol 35, No. 3 447-467

Gilbert, Leah and Payam Mohseni, Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes St. Comp Int Dev (2011) 46: 270-297

Isacoff, Jonathan B., Writing the Arab-Israeli Conflict Historical Bias and the Use of History in Political Science Vol 3/No. 1 March 2005, 71-88

Lee, Alexander, Who Becomes a Terrorist?: Poverty, Education, and the Origins of Political Violence World Politics/Volume 63/Issue 02/April 2011, 203-245

Lieberman, Evan S. and Prerna Singh, The Institutional Origins of Ethnic Violence Comparative Politics/October 201

Norris, Pippa, “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian, and Mixed  Systems” International Political Science Review (1997), Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 297-312

Pape, Ilan, De-terrorising the Palestinian national struggle: the roadmap to peace Critical Studies on Terrorism Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2009, 127-146

Schein, Andrew, Growth in Per Capita GDP in the West Bank and Gaza 1950-2005 Middle Eastern Studies, 2013 Vol. 49, No. 6, 973-989

Sirriyeh, Hussein, Is there a Palestinian civil war? The concept and the impact Israel Affairs Vol. 17, No. 2, April 2011, 247-258

Sprinzak, Ehud, The Emergence of the Israeli Radical Right Comparative Politics, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jan. 1989), 171-192

Valassopoulos, Anastasia The international Palestinian resistance: documentary and revolt Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 2014 Vol. 50, No. 2, 148-162

Welzel, Christian and Amy C. Alexander Measuring Effective Democracy: The Human Empowerment Approach World Values Research Volume 1/Number 1/2008

Initially I thought it would be wise to wait until it was closer to the November 2016 election to write this piece, but given the current level of Trump-mania (or hysteria depending on your perspective) and the fact that he has somehow increased his lead amongst Republican voters after more insane rhetoric I could wait no longer.

I will begin with a simple question for Americans: How could you let this happen?

Or maybe the question should be: Why is this happening?

In 2008 when Barack Obama was elected President under the promise of change it was supposed to usher in a new era of hope. To be clear this hope was not just for America, but the whole world, and especially for visible minorities in Western countries who could breathe a collective sigh of relief in thinking that this new future ushered in with the election of the first black president would finally help heal the scars of historic discrimination by demonstrating that the majority of people in one of the most advanced nations on earth would finally allow themselves to be led and represented by a man of color.

Did Barak do his part? Despite bi-partisan challenges and xenophobic probes (including his place of birth) the answer is absolutely yes, and the evidence to support this is clear: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYkPASOUQAAj_Af.jpg:large.  President Obama not only led the United States out of the worst economy since the depression but backed social reforms that ameliorated the lives of millions of disenfranchised and marginalized Americans.

In light of Obama’s performance, the question again is why is this happening? Why does it appear that Western society appears to have collectively taken a giant leap backward? If Obama had failed at his job the answer would have been understandable, or at least predictable: Despite the fact that many world leaders have failed at their jobs, conservatives and Obama’s critics who have their own agenda would pound the table with Obama’s failure, directly state that we can never let this happen again with the indirect agenda of never allowing a person of color even get a whiff of the White House again.  But in light of his success another path to intolerance had to be found and it is perhaps this reason why we are seeing what we are seeing out of American Politics.

Still unable to accept the fact that there was a black president and now infuriated by the fact that he was successful, society as a whole must now understand that intolerant forces that many had hoped were extinguished, were instead merely in hostile dormancy. Not foolish enough to competitively challenge a sitting president who was shining at his job, these intolerant forces waited until the first black president could not run for re-election to finally unleash themselves upon the world. The manifestation of these forces is Donald Trump.

Once dismissed as an obvious affront to common sense, in 2016 humanity is once again under siege by an afterthought being propelled to relevance by misguided people poisoned by hate. Although many of these people call themselves Republican and Donald Trump himself is running under the Republican banner it would be an insult to actual Republicans to equate the two. Simply because someone calls themselves something or represents themselves in a certain light does not make it true and it is the responsibility of the populous to question and validate dubious declarations. Unfortunately however, when people en masse choose to ignore facts and do not meet their responsibilities, lies have a way of becoming the truth when the people instead actually believe and blindly take to heart what they hear. And that is where we are now.

Radical conservatives and hate fuelled intolerance have found a symbol to attach themselves to and their collective action has now brought the world to the precipice of socially dystopian existence. When questioned about their allegiance to man who has openly made bigoted statements and conceived racist policies that would make pre-1960 America blush, they state that their support for Donald Trump as president is built on one or more of the following:

1)      He says what’s on his mind and he is honest;

2)      He is confident and brave;

3)      He is a successful businessman;

4)      He is self-funded;

5)      Ted Cruz is THE insidious cheater;

6)      He is what we need to make America great again.

However, even a superficial investigation of these claims leads demonstrates either their (at best) misguided falsity or (at worst) their espoused collective racial hatred. Examining each claim closely demonstrates not only what a farce Donald Trump is, but what a mockery is made of civilized society.

1)      He is what’s on his mind and he is honest; Let us be clear, there is a difference between these two things. While Donald Trump might say outlandish things that either pop into his mind or he deliberately says to provoke attention that does not mean that this statements are true or that he himself is honest. Obviously Donald Trump is both outspoken and brash and while that can be a good thing when done for a cause or the betterment of society, when done for one’s own selfish interests and personal prejudices, this lack of decorum not only renders you far from a capable diplomat or effective leader but makes the entire populous you claim to represent look like a joke on the world stage. In regards to Donald Trump’s honesty, this is simply another joke. Although books could be written on the man’s dishonest and nefarious practices pre-2015, but post-2015 not only does Politifact confirmation that over 75% of what he says is bullshit http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/fact-checking-website-donald-trump-lies-76-percent-of-the-time , but his feigning ignorance when questioned about David Duke and the White Supremacist vote is all the confirmation even the most mentally infirm would need to properly rate his honesty.

2)      He is confident and brave; I can understand how some people can get this impression. There is little question that Trump talks with a lot of gusto and power. Unfortunately, this tough talk is built only on hot air and exceptionally thin skin. Have you ever noticed what happens to Trump when he is challenged on a point or called on an inaccurate and/or malicious statement he has made? If you have not just visit your local school ground and observe a petulant child who does not get their way or is scolded by parent for misbehavior as it is essentially the same thing. The only real difference is that children usually do not use the kind of vitriol or personal attacks that comes out of Trump’s mouth nor do they have the imagination to make up some of the nonsensical garble or evade the subject the way he does. Other than that everything is pretty much the same; Get Red (check) Get Loud (check) Get Mad (check) Try and Change the Subject (check) Rant and Rave (check) Claim Someone Else is Responsible or Started it First (check). It is all there and as such someone with this sort of paper thin confidence level or flippant temperament can hardly be considered brave or confident.

3)      He is a successful businessman; This is actually the easiest claim to disprove since subjectivity is removed from the equation as countless Trump products have been spectacular failures. From Trump steaks to Trump University the flops and borderline scams renders the line of his failed brand extensions to stretch around the block. With respect to his core business, while his gorilla math somehow equates him to having a net-worth in the billions, even if this were true it is more of a testament to the failed state of corporate America and America’s bankruptcy laws than anything else. How someone can repeatedly declare business bankruptcy and have been on the brink of personal bankruptcy highlights all you know need to know about the need for reform in this area of the law. To his credit he has made his father’s business more prominent, but when you do so in manner where bankruptcy is the norm and your financing strategy involves no intention of paying back investors at agreed upon terms and subsequently threaten bankruptcy to “get a better deal” your degree does not read from the Wharton School of Business but rather it reads like it is from the Don King’s Institute of Ripping People Off. How Trump has not been indicted for fraud based on his practices and public statements which prove his has no interest in abiding by contracted terms is beyond comprehension.

4)      He is self-funded; Another great deception perpetrated on the American public by Trump is that his campaign is completely self-funded. Although one could say that this is technically accurate as the money is derived from him, the money appears to be nothing more than a loan advance from Donald Trump the dubious businessman to Donald Trump Presidential Campaign where one can assume that just like any other normal loan, the lender will be paid the full amount plus interest (every loan except when Donald Trump is the recipient). And given that the majority of funds Donald Trump Presidential Campaign will be derived from donations made by members of the American public, the claim that his campaign is self-funded is at best misleading and at worst fraudulent. To be fair, Donald Trump has recently come out and stated that he will be forgiving a large portion of the funds he has lent his campaign, however, given Trump’s propensity to lie http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/fact-checking-website-donald-trump-lies-76-percent-of-the-time this should be taken with a silo of salt until he actually does so.

5)      Ted Cruz is THE insidious cheater; Although Ted Cruz might turn out to be an insidious cheater who repeatedly cheats on his wife, that presumption is only just that, as there is currently no evidence produced confirming his alleged adultery. However, what is not up for debate and what is matter of public record is that Donald Trump IS a notorious philanderer who has repeatedly cheated on his spouse(s). Although I was hesitant to include this item on this list and one could argue that one’s personal life has little impact on one’s professional abilities, the fact that there are people out there (and as noted by Ted Cruz, likely cronies of Donald Trump) who can somehow peddle the notion that someone other than Donald Trump is the nefarious adulterous without highlighting the Donald’s own doings is an injustice I just could not tolerate. If Donald Trump interest in the Miss Universe and Miss America pageants is anything other than him trying to establish a high end harem of women to fawn over I would be utterly shocked.  

6)      He is what we need to make America great again; Finally we have the biggest misconception of all. Many have rallied around Trump and his catchphrase with the genuine belief that he is what America needs to be great again. But in what rational world can this be true? Leaving aside President Obama’s accomplishments and the fact that he took America out of the economic toilet it was in back in 2008, how can having a man with the (stated) convictions of Trump be a benefit to America or the rest of the world by extension? If Trump genuinely advocates for the removal and/or ban of immigrants which does nothing more than divide Americans and pit them against each other, pursues isolationist policies in an era of globalization, continues to be a stooge for the NRA when the streets are paved with the blood of over 10,000 Americans a year, continues to demonize women with his misogynistic vitriol, and basically continue to be the babbling hate-filled liar that he is, then again I must ask how this can be a positive for any rational person? The answer is simple, he cannot.

After examine each aspect of Trump’s appeal one thing is clear, it is all one big deception. This November America will find itself at the precipice of sanity and good government. Beyond that though, and more importantly, it will also find itself at the precipice of hope, kindness, and love. Is Hillary Clinton a perfect embodiment of the latter? If one is being completely honest the answer is unknown, but probably not.  That being the case, what even her most ardent critics would have to agree upon is that she is not the death of those sentiments. Donald Trump President however would be without question the death of the sentiments (along with being a death knell for American politics, both foreign and domestic).

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008 the fact that he was the first black President was not what was truly amazing, it was the fact that a country with as deep a history of discrimination had finally appeared to put its darkest racist and intolerant days behind it as the majority of its people had finally signified to the world that a person’s skin color was no longer of consequence. The significance of this was multi-dimensional but at the most basic level it meant that despite its misguided and devastating deviations, the United States was finally ready to fulfill the promises made during its declaration. In deciding whether to cast their vote for an ugly hate filled man intent on ruining the nation with divisive politics, the question Americans must ask themselves is: despite one’s political affiliations and personal biases, are we truly willing to let the social progress our beautiful country has finally achieved be dissolved? Do we even want to?

When it comes time to cast to vote all I will ask when even debating to vote for the most overt demagogue seen mid-twentieth century Germany is to trust your instinct and consider the spirit embodied in the following words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If Gandhi is right and hope and love always triumphs over evil, Americans working together   can ensure that they will surely trump Trump.