This Election is Proof We No Longer Need a President

I have to admit, in the days following the election of Donald Trump to the office of President of the United States, I was depressed. Not that I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, far from it — I waffled between casting my vote for Gary Johnson or Zoltan Istvan — but because I had always maintained great reverence for the position. See, I grew up in a time when being president meant something. The cast of my politics was forged upon the momentous statesmanship of Ronald Reagan, and my formative years were spent with the disgrace Richard Nixon brought upon the presidency still fresh in everyone’s memory. To this day, I have a 1968 vintage Presidents of the United States book set from American Heritage on my shelf.

No, what troubled me most about the fact that the electorate would even consider someone like Donald Trump, a mere personality, worthy of the greatest office on earth, let alone allow them to hold it, was the insult. The sanctity of the presidency was abolished with Trump’s election. His entry into the White House can only mean that we either subscribe to his primitive ideology, collectively, or we’re living in an idiocracy.

So considering neither of these to be acceptable, I was understandably shaken. Until I realized a third option. That the United States no longer has need for a president.

Now this is not to say that we don’t need a head of state, someone to serve as our chief public representative to the United Nations and other sovereign states. We do — though in that context Donald Trump is even less fit for the job. What it means, rather, is that we have finally realized our true capacity for self-governance. We no longer have need for a central authority.

To be sure, even the staunchest supporter of Donald Trump wouldn’t dream of ceding him power over their personal finances, let alone give him control over their lives. Their message wasn’t that they confer upon him any real confidence or defer to his judgement in any way. That wasn’t what they were trying to say in voting for him. No, the message America sent on Election Day 2016 was that they have no need for Washington D.C. whatsoever.

Personally, I am heartened by this realization, because, while being far from a globalist, I do see the world as a global community. Watching a clip on YouTube about the manned mission to Mars with my two young boys, I was emboldened by the knowledge that over a dozen countries are involved with the operation and maintenance of the International Space Station. With that level of cooperation in space, the likelihood of a terrestrial global military conflagration shrinks to near impossibility.

Indeed, it is only fitting that it was Hillary Clinton who placed the final nail in the presidential coffin, as it was her husband who cemented for Millennials an undermined confidence in the presidency in the first place. Nearly since birth, they have heard it disgraced, discredited, denounced, decried. The only holder of the office for whom they maintain any respect, Barack Obama, is more of a bro than an authority figure. He shares his playlists with them, Tweets, does interviews with Marc Maron and Vice. At least he can relate.

See the thing is, the generations of today don’t need a father figure telling them who they can date, or what they can spend their money on, or that they need to go to war anymore. Each generation since the Baby Boom has become more autonomous, more independent, more confident in their own capacity for self-determination. We don’t need a bunch of old white men, condescending coastal elites, or moneyed power brokers determining the future for us. We didn’t need Donald Trump, and we sure as hell don’t need Joe Biden.

In fact, we don’t need to be governed at all.

Don’t fret friends. We got this.

Gitmo

Some time ago, I was contacted by Montana Senator Steve Daines with an email entitled “Keep Guantanamo Open”. I was so appalled by the worldview presented in this letter that I felt compelled to share some thoughts and clearly communicate my position on the matter of Guantanamo Bay in particular and national security in general.

Ethics, honor, and human decency demand that we close this facility immediately and return those detained therein to their respective nations, for trial there, if their countries deem it appropriate, or for extradition to the United States if they face criminal charges in this country, as provided by international law.

Furthermore, while I have your ear, please allow me the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding in regards to some “values” Senator Daines and others have ascribed to me and purportedly uphold.

I, for one, do not spend my life in fear of any nation or ideology on earth, and therefore do not need to be made secure from them. To echo Eisenhower, the advent of the nuclear option ensures there can never again be a conflict of any scale on this planet, and these wasted efforts on the part of Senator Daines and others in the maintenance of a military state are rooted in a worldview that has long since passed being relevant.

To illustrate my point, let us consider for a moment the world that such people imagine and contrast it with reality. Where again do they find this overt military threat? It simply does not exist. At best there is a cultural threat, a poli-economic threat, but there is no military threat, and, I would argue, no real threat at all. No power in the world today is going to march against another, intent on commandeering the rest by force. Such talk is preposterous.

Let us take our thought experiment even further. What if the United States was to abandon its military position completely? What is the worst that would happen? Every country on earth aspires to emulate our success. Are they going to attack us? Enslave us? We buy their goods, we innovate advances that improve their lives, we are a model of freedom for the world. What nation is going to march against and supplant us?

Who could? So what if they did? Is there something so different about Chinese or Russian life that would fundamentally change how we live? Are there people in the developed world who actually believe there are sovereign nations bent on foreign conquest? To even ask the question is to appear ridiculous.

Imagine now the alternative. What if we were to eliminate all borders and allow people to freely move about the earth? What if we were to train every single person in their own defense and limit the use of military force to the protection of human and legal rights? What if we were to work in concert rather than discord? How would such a world differ from that of today?

To move forward, we must accept that, ultimately, the peoples of the earth will live in peaceful coexistence. This is an absolute inevitability. The sooner we can align ourselves with this reality, the better off we all shall be. 

In doing so, we must become open and accepting of other modes of living and realize that violence alone is our enemy. We can no more expect the other peoples of the world to bend to our will than we should bend to theirs. Surely there may be conflict and resolution as competing forms of poli-social-economic systems vie for primacy, but there need not be violence. Violence assumes resistance, and nature does not allow resistance to prevail. It is, in fact, futile. It will be overcome.

Recently I posed this question to a dear friend: “How do we move from where we are today to Star Trek?” I was disappointed by his response.

“How do we get there? Through competition. Nations competing against each other to be the first to gain advantage.”

That doesn’t sound like something Captain Kirk or Picard would say. It sounds more like the type of rhetoric I would expect to hear from Hitler, or perhaps Steve Daines.

Addendum:

The United States has occupied Guantanamo Bay Naval Base continuously since 1898. If that doesn’t put the artifice of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis into perspective, I don’t know what will.

A reasonable argument for competition from Robin Hanson – Long Views Are Competitive. However, I still believe what makes humans unique is inscribed in our ability to act contrary to our interests, and our further evolution contingent upon transcending this apparent need for competition.

GAS WAR – an idea that WILL work

if you received the email GAS WAR – an idea that WILL work, consider this:
 
Saudi Arabia has 25% of the world’s oil. Iraq comes in second
 
While there are quite a few “oil companies” in the world, there are really only a handful of conglomerates who control distribution and pricing:  BP, Shell, Total, and ExxonMobil. All of the names you find on the pumps are subsidiaries of these umbrella companies. Of them, Shell is the most realistic about their role in the environment; their CEO admits that unless the world begins extracting carbon from the atmosphere and returning it to the subterrane, the outlook is grave.
 
CITGO is owned by the national oil company of Venezuela, who nationalized all oil related industry in 1977. Venezuela has the fifth largest reserves in the world, and is the fifth largest supplier of US oil, after Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria. They currently are in negotiations with China, the fastest growing consumer market.
 
At current rates of consumption, only 40 years of oil reserves remain. 
 
Brazil is on the verge of announcing energy independence. The country already satisfies nearly half of its domestic passenger vehicle fuel demand with ethanol from sugar cane. The refineries that produce the ethanol are powered by waste from the ethanol production process. 

Corn is the only source of raw material for ethanol production in the US, and most studies indicate it takes nearly as much energy to produce the corn ethanol as the fuel provides. Ethanol accounts for approximately 4% of US fuel consumption.

As far as pricing goes, brand-name boycotting is an ineffective mechanism. These are wealthiest companies on the planet controlling the most valuable commodity on earth. If you boycott one company, they will purchase the name of the company you are buying. Get a clue!
 
And lastly, STOP YOUR WHINING, you lazy, self-absorbed imbeciles! You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Your grandchildren will pay the price of your indolence. 
 
Quit driving. Buy local. Grow your own foodstuffs. Reduce.

You must be the change you want to see in the world – Mahatma Gandhi

Happy Earth Day – April 22, 2006

Dear Mr. Tanner Thomas

I recently read your article in Teen World News. After reading it, I felt compelled to redress several points.

First, a war cannot be stupid. Ridiculous, yes. Absurd, certainly. But stupid describes a trait of the mind, and a war cannot be stupid any more than it could be boisterous or happy or intelligent. I grant that in modern English, stupid and meaningless are often utilized interchangeably, but I must note that a promising young writer such as yourself ought to get in the habit of using the words that truly capture the essence of what it is they are trying to express. As I am confident that you believe the war does have meaning, or at least some point, be it good or bad, I feel that a quick visit to the thesaurus would better allow me to grasp what it was you actually wanted me to comprehend.

Second, I must state that the reason we went to Iraq, and continue to remain in Iraq, is because you and I both want us there. Regardless of how you perceive your feelings over the matter to be, the facts of your actions, and the actions of all Americans, dictate that we invade and conquer Iraq. The deaths of Marines and Iraqi civilians to which you allude in your article are the direct result of your own daily choices, and mine. Every time I pull up to the gas pump and fill my tank with gasoline shipped here from Iraqi oil fields secured by American troops, I am stating explicitly that I want to be in Iraq. Every time you drive anywhere, you are supporting the foreign policy that provides the cheap oil products that get you there.   

I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be in Iraq. But I am tired of the hypocrisy of those who cry for peace while they continue to demand the lifestyle only war can ensure.

If you want to change the world, change yourself.

Thank you for the excellent article.

Sincerely,

Cobey Williamson