NOprah

There seems to be a trending fascination among Americans that watching the world burn is actually pretty fun.

While people continue to fantasize about what it would be like to live in a Post-Apocalyptic world by watching their favorite TV shows and movies, i.e. The Walking Dead, I Am Legend, The Book of Eli, etc., the signs of a non-fiction version of the apocalypse are displayed on our favorite news stations. For example, channels like CNN and MSNBC regularly have conversations to the effect of the following questions: Is Donald Trump actually going to press the nuke button? Is he going to drive someone else, like Kim Jong Un, to press the nuke button? Is some other fed up, last-leg nation going to press the nuke button, because they have nothing left to lose? These inquisitive scenarios are all hypothetical, but if just one of them happened, then there you have it: A kind of post-apocalypse in the making.

During 2017, we saw the face of the US's potential demise sworn in as POTUS. Similar to how many of us felt on November 9th, 2016, January 20th, 2017 wasn't much better. Many of us could see what was on the way: Social progress derailment, the loss of confidence and support from our foreign allies, the spiraling crash landing of a once great nation. Now that we're in January, 2018, we can all see that we were, fortunately, pretty wrong. Sure, Trump has tried--continues to try--to thwart social progress, to make sworn enemies threaten nuclear war, to masquerade his idiocy with intellect, but overall he's been unsuccessful. Today, social groups, protesters, anti-fascists, and the like are out in droves to maintain some semblance of sanity. The Trump administration has taught us, perhaps more so than any other administration in the history of the US of A, that a presidency does not define the rest of the country and that the government can only lead effectively through partnership with the rest of the American people. I'm confident that we all previously thought that to be true, but the evidence in support is direct. The "Stable Genius" can't solely rely on the horses he appointed to pass country-wide federal laws.

What we absolutely can not do is fight insanity with insanity--the metaphorical "watching the world burn." At the Golden Globes this past week, Oprah Winfrey gave an absolutely magnificent speech upon receipt of the Cecil B. DeMille award. She absolutely deserves the lifetime achievement award, and her speech on sexual harassment, along with her support of the #MeToo movement was powerful! Her work in and out of film has been exemplary. Sure, she may have been the reason for some people we might not like so much, i.e. Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, etc., but I have little doubt that her heart was and always has been in the right place. I even look forward to her performance in the live action remake of one of my favorite books "A Wrinkle in Time." That said, she absolutely should not run for presidency. Though I agree that Oprah would be a better president than Donald Trump, it doesn't mean it should happen. Harking back to overly sarcastic, exaggerated statements like, "Bah! My big toe could be a better president than he is!" The dissection of which would resolve to something like, "1. This is probably true, but 2. It shouldn't happen. Your big toe should not run for presidency. I would guess it's fairly consistently in the dark on major topics."

Ha.

The Trump administration has fostered the formation of hard working, no nonsense protesters as well as, on the other hand, large-scale complacency throughout the country for the desperate desire of having anyone else not named "Trump" as president. It needs to be understood: This. Is. A. Problem. Too. This is not to say that Oprah is a know-nothing bullshitter. She's intelligent. She's kind. Her generosity is right around Ellen level. She has connections. She has the money to run, campaign, etc. But, and similar to the questions we were all asking about Trump, what on Earth does she know about running a country? Does she understand economics on a national and even global scale? Does she know anything about running a military? Does she understand the consequences of both militaristic actions and the lack thereof? Socially speaking, I don't have any questions. I have no doubt that she has the capability of championing minority groups into the future, but we all know that's not all what the presidency is about. This is also not to say that the next president needs to be a seasoned politician. I'm not of that belief. Politicians, as we have seen, have the same capability of running the country into the ground as a non-politician. There are, however, many up and coming politicians, i.e. Kamala Harris, Joe Kennedy III, to name a couple, and others that are great-minded, younger politicians with a solid political background, many of whom have social progress, economic progress, and the gradual ease of aggressive military strategy as major platform attachments.

The biggest lesson anyone can learn from the past election is to take elections in general more seriously. A country is not a game show--it shouldn't be run by a game show host. A country is, more than land, the people whom inhabit it. And if the majority of the people who inhabit it are genuinely afraid of someone leading the country into a deeper pit of ignorant marginalization, economic disparity, and an overall fear for well being, then maybe we should listen.

- PatInTheHat