I wonder whether the continuing and justified criticism against the not-elected, new US president, is not misleading?
The so convenient yet useless pigeonholing into political right and political left seems to me not well reflected when addressing the phenomenon of the new US-president. In my view, he is not so much a representative of the political right. Even though the US-republicans – a designated political ‘right’ party – offered him a political harbour, when he decided to shop for presidency, and was seeking a party that would offer him such a rogue strike. (There are probably plenty republicans who by now regret such welcoming and may be even be more sorry in times to come.)
The new US-president is the representative of a small but very money-rich elite, which is best characterized by their recklessness, contempt for humans and a behavior unworthy of human kind – deeply anti-social. But money alone has not brought him into office. He was brought into politicis on one hand by tens of thousands of citizens who are dissatisfied with and increasingly dsimissive of the political establishment – rightly so – and on the other hand by a system not deserving to be called democracy, because it puts its political structure higher, yet still has people to vote to then – regardless of majority vote – put the non-elected into presidential power. (According to Citizen’s Watch Clinton received 2.8 Million more votes).
All those who still believe in democracy by means of elections and the simplified world view of political left and political right might want to rethink.