In some theories of government, the brightest and the best would work together to guide people so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Those with intelligence and learning would craft policies and messages. Those with charisma and poise would deliver those messages and implement those policies. Drives for vengeance would be focused into quests for justice. Individual ambitions would be joined together for collective gains. The thinkers would warn the implementers about unintended side effects of their proposed actions, such as how a heavy hand on a minority group in an attempt to avoid trouble might in fact engender the exact kind of trouble that was to be avoided, that sometimes counter-intuitive reactions have the desired effects.
On the other hand, we have the Harvard Law graduate who thinks that the government that governs least is best. He seems not to wish to unite all of us to raise us all up together; he seems eager to gather his own personal power, be it destructive or constructive, doing what he can to increase his power. If the message from the people is rage and retribution, he’ll be happy to lead the charge against the misunderstood minority and apparent villains, not bothering to explain a more nuanced view of things.
There’s probably a theory of politics that notes that an easy way to win an election is to be sure that you run against an unelectable opponent. Does the progressive left really have such subtle power that they could stoke enthusiasm for demagogues such as Trump and Cruz simply so HRC’s polarizing effect seems minor compared to her opponents’ polarizing effects? Not the Senator from Vermont; the narcissists from Texas and New York, of course.
It’s a shame that wiser, cooler heads seem to have decided to profit from polarization instead of joining forces for the greater good.
Then again, sometimes my faith in mankind’s quest for the greater good just seems quaint and naive. Go figure….