The 2016 election has come to an end, with the effects reverberating not only through the heartland of America, but throughout the world. This election was perhaps one of the most divisive, toxic, and also, hollow campaigns waged here on American soil. As voters could barely stomach going to the voting booths, both camps had rallying cries and soothing rhetoric to either jumpstart voters or placate them. While both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had voters unable to pull the lever for them, though desperate for their votes, one category of phrases was repeatedly uttered from Clinton supporters trying to lasso in skeptical progressives.

Elect her than hold her accountable.

Keep her feet to the fire.

Elect her and push her to the left.

These lines and similar disseminated throughout the public, from popular surrogates down to the individual voter. Progressives could have the candidate they desired, as long as they "pushed" her to do it. She was open to debate, she could be more progressive as long as people held her feet to the fire. Just like Clinton, these lines felt hollow to so many depressed and disillusioned voters desperately hoping for someone to just help them. So, the question is thus: Why?

Why does an individual voter, one whose power is quite small compared to an elected official, need to keep a politician accountable? Or rather, why do we elect people who need to be constantly monitored. If one needs to hold their elected official accountable, does that mean that if you let up, they will go back to their own way and pursue dangerous policies? So then, why elect them in the first place? Why continue to elect children who, if we don't keep a wary eye on them, will always raid the cookie jar? Was Clinton any different in this regard?

Clinton has been an individual who studiously peered over the latest polls that an intern would rush to her, trying to get a finger on the pulse of America. Against gay marriage to for gay marriage, Wall Street reform or not, for the environment or fracking, and many more issues that seemed to change with the wind. From moderate centrist to progressive to "progressive who gets things done" back to courting Republican voters, the chameleon Clinton changed her colors depending upon the crowd. From collecting a check from Goldman Sachs in one hand to telling people she would reform Wall Street in another, her true constituency was not the people, but merely corporate, wealthy interests. While she would be quick to state how she has always cared about these issues, it either fits into one of two categories: Has the polls shifted to be favorable for this social issue, and does it conflict with a corporate profit model.

This concern isn't merely just for Clinton who was close to becoming President, on whether or not people can push a politician towards something that can be beneficial towards the average person. A closer examination of current President Obama shows the failure in trying to steer a President already set in their ways. Obama in 2008 was elected under a large mandate, with 10 million more votes and 365 EC votes. With the Great Recession driving people into submission and the subprime mortgage crisis destroying homes, people sought relief. Did the President stick out a hand to those crushed in economy? Did the President pursue the fraudulent people on Wall Street and financial sectors who destroyed the lives of so many?

No.

The bailout went to pad corporate executives as they floated away on golden parachutes, while those who suffered under the system were left to wallow in despair. What further evidence does an individual need to be convinced to go after the individuals who ushered in this catastrophe? This issue was in the spotlight, with millions of Americans clamoring for the "Hope and Change" he campaigned on. What more can one do to push an individual to take action? It isn't until people realize that he had no intention of doing so; he could not be pushed. And that is the fundamental point to make here: some cannot be pushed.

Each President and every elected official makes a decision when they enter office: Who is my constituency, business or people? With Obama we saw that answer.

Profits over People.

Wall Street over Workers.

Corporations over Citizens.

From Wall Street bailouts, to the TPP, to which he is still championing even though so many are against the corporate protectionist document, to corporate healthcare reform, to those protesting at Standing Rock, Obama is a politician who cannot be pushed against corporate interests.

Power protects power, money protects money, and as we saw with the ability to go after Bush and Cheney for the atrocities in the Iraq war, politicians protect politicians.

Obama has been cited as saying "Show me the movement. Make me do it." (according to Michael Pollan), which is homage to FDR's similar statement of "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." Now the reason for this quote is the potential counterpoint in the inability to push a politician against certain interests with the example of the Keystone Pipeline, a pipeline Obama vetoed back in 2015 amidst large protests. Was Obama pushed by the people against the Keystone Pipeline or were other factors at play?

Obama has a mixed report card when it comes to oil and gas industries. He vetoed the Keystone Pipeline yet is mostly silent regarding Standing Rock. He approved of Shell's plans to drill in the Arctic to now blocking new leases to drill in the Arctic. Obama also had approved new fracking regulations but were overruled, but also approved hundreds of offshore fracking applications in the Gulf of Mexico.

What this shows is that while Obama has been a mixed bag on environmental concerns, regardless of the amount of public outrage, Obama appears to be following a course outside of public concern. While he vetoed Keystone Pipeline, following the train of thought with public pressure and pushing, he should also be adamantly opposed to DAPL and the brutal tactics against the protestors at Standing Rock. Yet, Obama is mostly mum about the pipeline, offering sleepy platitudes that protestors should be able to protest safely, while not forcefully objecting to the use of water cannons, rubber bullets, and even concussion grenades.

With the financial sector, with Wall Street and the banks, Obama cannot be pushed. After the Great Recession and the subprime mortgage crisis, millions lost their homes or jobs. And yet, Obama could not be pushed. Millions cried out for help. And yet, Obama could not be pushed. The statement "Show me the movement. Make me do it" was not a rallying cry for the masses to force the public discourse. It is a nauseating reality of our current political environment. It is not a politician who has their hands tied, unable to go against the powerful interests with their good intentions. Oh no, it has devolved into nothing more than a taunt. An elementary child being beaten by a schoolyard bully, and when he asks the bully to stop, the bully replies, "Yeah, make me do it."

One of the most dangerous aspects of this idea of holding your politicians accountable, pushing them, feet to the fire, or some other variant, is the built-in defense clause from their supporters. When their politician of choice either does not uphold their campaign promises or enacts destructive legislation, the supporters do not blame their beloved politician. No, in a Pavlovian reaction, any and every criticism time after time is discarded as the people not holding that politician's feet to the fire. If a President bails out the financial sector instead of people, it's because people didn't push them left. If a President goes after the TPP with a corporatist protectionist angle, it's because people didn't hold them accountable to trade campaign promises.

Imagine in a hypothetical series of elections the following scenario: The Democrats have all 535 seats of Congress and win the presidential election. There is no opposition party to stop them (or act as a convenient scapegoat). If they do not pass legislation that the public demands, such as single payer healthcare, campaign finance reform, etc., some supporters will still blame the people. All because the people didn't hold their feet to the fire. They didn't force the politicians, who were elected because the people had demanded certain things, to do what they had asked. In this way, the powerful will always be protected, while those without will always be blamed.

With that, there are instances where the idea of pushing a politician towards a certain path is worthwhile. An elected official, especially of higher offices, cannot be expected to know every facet of every system out there. If for instance, a governor is elected on an environmental platform, and local activists meet with the new governor to discuss toxic pollutants found in various lakes throughout the state that are harmful to the local wildlife, then that is shining light on a problem that perhaps the newly-elect governor may not have known, even with the governor's environmental slant. The point is that that individual is actually open to discussion, because it is in line with their philosophies. If the governor acts in accordance, say new regulations or a statewide cleaning program, then the governor was successfully "pushed". The real issue is well-known problems, such as DAPL or Wall Street reform.

A politician should have information revealed to them, of situations they are not privy to; however, a politician should not need to be pushed to then act upon that initiative if they are supposedly an ally to your goal in the first place. Politicians have their feet held to the fire all the time, by their corporate donors. What needs to happen is not the pursuit of forced accountability, of pushing a politician who is made of stone, or of charring their feet. What we need as people are the politicians who do not need to be pushed, but will listen. We need people who do not need their feet burned, but gladly walk across the fire. We need people who do not scoff at accountability, but whose word actually means something.

We need to stop pushing those who are either apathetic or against the goals they were elected on and instead promote those people whose goals are actually what they will fight for. The only push the people should ever need for a politician is not actually a push, but rather, a pull for the lever in the voting booth.