Misperception about the United States

In a letter to the Editor published Monday, June 5 under the tile: “The situation in the United States can’t be reversed,” there were some misconceptions that I would like to be addressed regarding the U.S. system.
Supporters of President Trump are collated with those of his main challenger HIllary Clinton during the campaigns last year. Net photo
Supporters of President Trump are collated with those of his main challenger HIllary Clinton during the campaigns last year. Net photo

Editor,

In a letter to the Editor published Monday, June 5 under the tile: “The situation in the United States can’t be reversed,” there were some misconceptions that I would like to be addressed regarding the U.S. system.

 

First, the U.S. holds elections every four years. So, every four years offers an opportunity for the American people to vote a new President in. Why does the writer say things cannot be reversed when there is another opportunity every four years to change leadership?

 

For the most part, Americans are optimistic in the sense that if you don’t like what is happening currently, we do not need to complain but do what we can to proceed to a new day and a better way.

 

This was not recognised as an attribute by the writer, perhaps because the writer does not understand the ethos of the American people.

Second, Americans do not perceive the ‘cult of personality’ as a good thing and never have—because Americans aspired to be action-oriented participants in democracy.

In the United States, presidents might start out popular, but soon their cult of personality is broken apart by both parties and the media, so it cannot develop into a cult.

This is a good thing in America because it means that U.S. Presidents must be responsive to all the people. Unfortunately, if the President is not popular with the media to represent issues they think he or she should handle, then that President gets criticism sooner than later.

Therefore, there is no such thing as impossibility to reverse the U.S. path.

Third, the writer did not recognise that the U.S. path is not dependent only upon a President or a particular political party, but upon the will of the people (the majority).

The only problem I see with this is that it can create a ‘tyranny of the majority.’

This situation happens because one party may have a majority in all branches of the government. Fortunately, because of freedoms of speech and expression in the US, those groups also have opportunity to have a voice in the United States.

Our freedoms therefore are our path; not who the President is.

In America, we cherish and value protecting these freedoms above all else.

Linda S. Waits-Kamau is currently serving as a loaned professional in Communications & Organizational Development through U.S. Peace Corps Response.

The views expressed in this letter to the editor do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Peace Corps but are solely those of the author.

Subscribe to The New Times E-Paper


You want to chat directly with us? Send us a message on WhatsApp at +250 788 310 999    

 

Follow The New Times on Google News