Trump protesters are immoral, childish, and dangerous. Accepting what we do not like, or benefit from, is not easy. The universe does not conspire in our favor, and no matter how healthy we are or how young we are, we are dying. We do not save the world by sharing posts on Facebook.
Recognizing and accepting setbacks is what differentiates a child from an adult, and this is valid individually as well as collectively. A society can be, like an individual, childish or mature.
- Read More: Business Leaders to Trump: Canning NAFTA Could Kill 6 Million US Jobs
- Read More: Trump Tower to be Built in Downtown Buenos Aires
The shock and uncertainty of the world after the Trump victory in the United States last Tuesday may have paralyzed many, but also mobilized others. Hundreds of supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton (or those who were simply anti-Trump) protested in several parts of the country; some even damaged property. They broke windows, destroyed cars, and set fire to dumpsters. In Portland, Oregon alone, there were 26 arrests.
It is difficult to explain against what or whom were the protests. Hopefully such protests were not against democracy, the popular will, or their fellow citizens. Such an attitude would not only be collectively childish, but dangerous. It is clear that some basic guidelines of freedom are not being understood.
Someone once said that democracy is a good system as long as it is compared to a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy.
Are these the representatives of progressivism who would have ruled if the results were different? Are the protesters afraid of an aggressive and intolerant government? In that hypothetical world in which Clinton won what would have happened if the sympathizers of the New York tycoon were marching? Would there be, for example, Republicans in Texas, proposing secession, as some Democrats in California have done?
Moreover, it is ironic that many of those who were part of the various protests criticized the president-elect when in a debate he said that he might not accept a potential defeat, alluding to possible electoral fraud. Now they are refusing to accept the will of the people.
The little to no respect for what the other side prefers and feels has led the United States – and is leading the entire world, given that it is a global phenomenon – to choose between two candidates without principles or charisma. Rather they merely evidence personal ambition. The one who wins wins merely because they are sufficiently skilled not to lose.
And, as is often the case in childish societies with political tantrums and progressive cravings, they are represented by leaders who represent them inconsistently. The ex-president and current Uruguayan senator Jose “Pepe” Mujica affirmed, after the victory of Donald Trump was made public, that the only word that he had to pronounce on the subject was “Help!”.
Mujica did not ask for help while Dilma covered up corruption, when Cristina Kirchner engaged in worse corruption, or when half of Venezuela began to suffer from hunger. Mujica did not believe that a strong and clear request for help was necessary in these circumstances.
There are too many people today who only respect democracy if it suits them, and accuse their opponents of tyrrany when their political beliefs are in jeopardy.
They, those who march, those who break windows of shopkeepers who have nothing to do with the issues at hand, see themselves, however, as the embodiment of good, progress, equality, respect, and tolerance. They do not see their obvious contradictions, for they lack self-criticism and self-awareness, yet are arrogant enough to call out others for being right-wing, homophobic, racist, ignorant, white supremacists, non-PETA enthusiasts, who didn’t make cakes for the LGBT community.
In their selfishness and childishness, and from that self-righteous pulpit in which they stand, those who march against the popular will and the freedom of individuals to vote for their leaders become, without knowing it, immoral.