With the Trump coronation near at hand, the question of his “legitimacy” as POTUS 45 continue to dominate the news, and those silly Russians still don’t get off stage!

It is not apparent what legitimacy means in this context. Is Trump the benevolent standard bearer of the PEOPLE (the 95%) of America and the of the world? Of course not. (And I don’t see the comedy in the arrogant CEO’s off-the-cuff insults and one-liners.)

But is Trump legit in the formal/procedural sense—the American Way of “doing business”? Of course he is. That’s why we are installing him as the new President. And he is far more predictable than his opponents tend to think because he is well contained within a resilient system that relentlessly destroys (or absorbs) all antithetical elements.

The system is rigged, not because of corrupt politicians and their malignant henchmen who may be pathological liars as well. Their collective behavior is the CONSEQUENCE OF SANCTIONED VALUES DERIVED FROM ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ETHICAL COMPONENTS OF A MALEVOLENT SYSTEM that benefits the 5% and subjugates the rest. Therefore, the existing pattern was bound to produce a dramatic Hillary vs Donald type no-holes-barred combat sooner or later. There was no real surprise here.

Therefore, I’ll go back to the discussion of the Electoral College and such when I wrote about legitimacy within the American Way—the process by which Trump got to the White House.

It appears there was some confrontation, or some chastising of the VP-Elect Pence by the cast of the immensely popular Broadway Musical HAMILTON, which the VP-E had gone to watch. An evening of entertainment gone a bit testy I am told, as it ended in a gentle reprimand of the Pence man.

I understand Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson’s VP and the man who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, was the chief critic of our VP-E. This actor wanted to make sure that Pence knew America was a land of diversity where VPs have obligations too, not just power.

(This confrontation may be gossip that propels the unfinished campaign drama forward—keeps it alive on a real stage. Or, maybe it is something else.)

I have no expertise in 18th century American history, but what I remember about Alexander Hamilton is that he, along with other makers of the US Constitution, championed the Electoral College system of electing the Pres. These men were quite UNITED AGAINST DIRECT DEMOCRACY, which they believed always DEGENERATED INTO A “TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY”. And they tried to find a way to fashion a republican system where the Southern owners of plantations and slaves, AS WELL AS the Federalists of the North could be satisfied. In praise of the modern version, a 1970 US Senate report concluded that the Electoral College system continues to be “the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.”

In fact though, the transformation of American capitalism through the years to its current form, where the concentration of wealth and distribution of population allow us to talk about the 1% vs 99%, or 5% vs 95%, the populous coastal states have acquired a DIFFERENT CHARACTER from their smaller land-locked neighbors due to IMMENSE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL POWER. This is not a matter of numbers. This is the classic DISPARITY AND IMBALANCE BETWEEN “CENTER” AND “PERIPHERY”—terms used by many economists.

Many have reflected on these two different Americas for years, yet at the same time called the Electoral College anachronistic and a dangerous game. Progress belonged to the center, they said, and reaction to the periphery. So I find it amusing that sporadically after Bush defeated Gore in 2000, and now after the Hillary debacle, some are back to championing the supremacy of direct democracy and ending the Electoral College, BUT WITHOUT A CRITIQUE (LET ALONE PROPOSING A REVISION) OF THE US CONSTITUTION. That would be treasonous! Meanwhile, ALL U.S. PRESIDENTS TO DATE HAVE BEEN ELECTED THE SAME WAY, I suppose starting with Jefferson’s victory over John Adams, where the Southern states gave TJ his Electoral College victory. Adams complained not, because he too was opposed to direct and simple democracy—as I understand.

There are many instances I can recall in my lifetime where this very method of electing the head of the American State has been ELEVATED AS ANOTHER UNIQUE FEATURE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY—another measure of its “exceptionalism”.

Note, indirect methods of electing heads of state are intrinsic to all forms of parliamentary democracy. Note too, in countries where “direct democracy” has been practiced, THIS PRACTICE BY ITSELF HAS NOT DECIDED THE ESSENCE OF THE OUTCOME. The procedure has produced both enlightened leaders and authoritarian monsters. Because the result has not ever been a matter of numbers. Once again, critics of THIS ELECTION confuse procedural/formal democracy with real and substantive decision-making power of the people. A people’s republic we are not.

The obvious example in this context is the structure of our legislative branch. Every state sends 2 Senators to Washington and with the exception of someone like Bernie, they are either Republican or Democrat. On the other hand, election to the House does depend on a state’s population and Congressional districts are constructed accordingly. Thus, Vermont and New Hampshire each sends 2 Senators to the Capital, but each state elects only one Congressperson! The logic here is similar to the Electoral College argument—TO BALANCE THE INEQUALITY BETWEEN LARGE AND SMALL STATES. On the whole, all elected politicians are entrenched in the two-party system. THEY ARE EITHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, with a few exceptions.

So what’s the conclusion?

IT MAY BE TIME INDEED TO FIND A DIFFERENT WAY TO ELECT THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, BUT DONALD TRUMP WON THIS ELECTION IN THE SAME WAY EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT HAS DONE BEFORE HIM. The Electoral College prevailed. It has been consistent in favoring the 5% within the two-party construct, and thus would vote to elect Donald or Hillary in any event.

(To be sure, some political decisions in the US are made by a simple majority, but not the most critical ones. Even House Reps are elected by districts that are constructed and reconstructed by the Party which holds power in each state.)

A presidential campaign would have to be RUN IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY IF A SIMPLE MAJORITY—the vote total across all states—WAS TO BE THE PRIZE. Even under the two party banner, candidates would be spending much of their time IN THE MOST POPULOUS STATES. Moreover, the notion of “battleground states” would be altogether different. And so on.

Isn’t it time now, instead of logistics and procedures, that we begin to view with clarity ALL FACETS OF INEQUALITY, OF BIGOTRY, OF INHUMANITY that have been there all the time in our history—and not all that hidden either? Who do you think has not seen glimpses of that America?

It appears that Trump’s victory has belatedly EXPOSED THESE FACETS TO FOLKS WHO HAVEN’T SUFFERED ALL THAT MUCH in the Clinton-Bush-Obama era. They were complacent before this election and benefited from this complacency, many by supporting the Clinton clan. Now they are alarmed, yet shunning the landscape where the President-Elect joyfully goes about ensuring that their beloved system prevails in all its glory. At home and in the world. Let us watch.

Donald is getting his big house in order while partisan “experts” from the media and other quarters see nothing but chaos once Obama leaves the building. Other than Obama himself. THE PRESIDENT HAS PROMISED TO HELP TRUMP SETTLE DOWN ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE—SMOOTHLY. Yes, the transition must be s-m-o-o-t-h, as it has been in the past—after the dusty drapes are laundered, rugs and bugs are swept clean and new chefs bring in their fancy cuisine, never to be tasted by those fervent voters of our “battleground states”. Or, will be they invited at last to banquets fit for dignitaries and celebrities?

Meanwhile, around the world people have been mourning the passing of Fidel. From Canada to Indonesia, from South Africa to Chile, leaders, intellectuals, working people and truth-seekers have recalled how in many ways the Cuban Revolution influenced their thinking and their lives. How their countries too could overthrow dictators and find a new direction.

Except the United States, where the news of Fidel’s death produced some joy in Miami, but for the most part, the concerns, aspirations and destiny of a resilient people only 90 miles from the Florida coast were more or less ignored. (Could it be that the only ones thinking about the future were Donald and his children, visualizing a magnificent “Trump Tower” in Havana?)

For the millionaire media hacks of America, the biggest suspense followed immediately by much consternation continues to be Trump’s cabinet appointments and his acquiring loyal followers to staff his administration. And THE EMERGING ROLE OF HIS FAMILY CLUSTER IN THIS “UNIQUE” PRESIDENCY seems to bother some. Of course, recent Presidents didn’t have children old enough, or able enough to assist their father in his job. But THE KENNEDYS HAD IT GOOD, and this anti-nepotism rule came into existence only in 1967 I believe.

The DEMOCRATS ARE IN A TURMOIL OF SORTS, but I would suggest this is temporary. The powerbrokers will prevail, by making some concessions to be sure, but these are not going to move the party to the left of a neo-liberal vision that was expounded by Hillary. Nancy Pelosi is once again the leader of the Dem pack in the House after a tiny rebellion, and DO WE REALLY FORESEE A CHANGING OF THE GUARD elsewhere that will shock us?

The right-wing media with their many vituperous talk show hosts, constantly and consistently keep referring to the Clinton Dems as well as the rest of the party as “the American Left”. WHY ANYONE WOULD BUY INTO THIS SELF-SERVING ILLUSION IS HARD TO FATHOM. PERHAPS BECAUSE THERE AIN’T NO LEFT POLITICS AT THAT LEVEL—I MEAN WITHIN THE TWO-PARTY CONGRESS—THAT CAN SERVE THE PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, THE 95%.

That the US HAS MADE A DISCERNIBLE SHIFT TO THE RIGHT—certainly seems obvious to everyone outside the country. And also to most people I know or know about here at home. Bernie just made it clear that he was dedicated to reforming the Democratic Party from within— “at least for now”. He said he has many advantages as a Senator and would use these toward his goal. A PRAGMATIST’S DECLARATION I suppose. Why give up this privilege to take on a more challenging and more uncertain struggle to enliven a “third force” that breaks ties with the two parties? That is, a CHANGE FROM HIS “INDEPENDENT” STATUS to becoming A REAL DEMOCRAT WAS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE—for his own future and his country’s of course. Really?

LEST WE FORGET, OBAMA HAS CALLED TRUMP A PRAGMATIST, AS TRUMP CALLS HIMSELF: THE DEAL-MAKER WHO’LL GET THINGS DONE. (Like Mussolini getting his trains running on time.) Surely, the two must agree about the Carrier “deal” just concluded. PRECISELY BECAUSE IT DOESN’T DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE FACE OR FATE OF LABOR IN AMERICA.

In fairness to Bernie, he continues to articulate all of the people oriented ideas and goals he expressed during the primary campaign. He said CHANGE HAS ALWAYS COME FROM PEOPLE DEMANDING IT and relying on celebrity politicians won’t do. FROM BELOW, NOT FROM ABOVE. Perhaps he has realized that was precisely what went wrong with his campaign. All the more reason the Bernie decision to reform the Dems doesn’t make sense to me. Or to many others—Cornel West, for example.

Meanwhile, Jill Stein has initiated, with a purse of some 5 million dollars, vote recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. She has been joined now by Hillary’s team. I am quite baffled by such an effort from the Greens, INSTEAD OF SPEARHEADING A “THIRD FORCE” TO BREAK THE TWO-PARTY STRANGLEHOLD—a matter even Robert Reich saw as a matter of high priority. Ah, but all that assumed a Hillary Presidency, no? The argument must have been “Let’s get Hillary to the White House, and then we’ll unleash the Green Power”.

Seriously though, regardless of Jill’s motivation, the outcome of a recount demand is certain. A STATE MAY NOT ACCEDE to this demand, or a recount DOESN’T ALTER THE FIRST COUNT—then Donald WINS. The ONLY OTHER POSSIBILITY IS HILLARY BEATS TRUMP IN ONE OR MORE STATES. How this benefits a popular struggle—a third force for change—I cannot fathom. TO QUOTE JILL STEIN DIRECTLY, “THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS IS STILL EVIL.” I would suggest this statement weighs even heavier in the Trump era.

A sober look at P-E Trump’s activities shows me different things—all of them bits of America’s answer to itself. I thought it may be a good idea to look at WHAT WILL CONTINUE to be America’s posture and policies under Trump, and where there MAY BE A DISCONTINUITY. Also, another pair of categories that define the structure of our system—political, economic, social and cultural, is CONSTANTS and VARIABLES. How are these pairs likely to shape the Trump era?

In other words, some demystification is in order.