What if this election, if not our future, puts our most hallowed democratic value on the line: does the majority rule our most significant national commitments — or will it get poleaxed, smashed and exiled? Right, across rules, regulations, law enforcement, immigration, even nuclear weapons or waterboarding? Will we have a president who honors consensus and expanding the majority of all — or an undemocratic roustabout whose highest value answers to a majority of one?

The issue isn’t just majority rule for elections but spanning representative government. Does not national equilibrium, buoyed by that elusive 50%+ consensus, rely on the sovereignty of the majority — when choosing war and militarism, tax fairness, big budget items, even which federal laws get enforced or snuffed? Unimpeachable moral, historic and political legacies insist the greater the impact of a decision, the more necessary is an explicit majority, especially one that includes newcomers.

Admittedly, Clinton is compromised, untrusted, and lacks vision — what progressives can't stand about cronyism, pay-to-play and status quo centrism. Money-grubbing partnerships and hawkish militarism signal Clinton defaults. But at least this reflex, focusing on the expedience of power (finger always to the wind) that distinguishes HRC from a demagogue who scoffs at democratic sanctity, finally tabulating one, all-important vote: his. Trump’s campaign testifies to his not listening to hired advisors, nor reams of negative polling, indeed alienating top GOP fat cats. No wonder he failed to win a party majority in Republican primaries.

Sovereignty by an ever-inclusive majority is not a “nice-to-have” but a “must have” to deflect a state of permanent disorder. Like pregnancy, there’s no halfway status: the majority grows and leads on big decisions or something far worse dictates. What if the clearest choice between Clinton and Trump comes down to whether a new president honors mass public opinion vs. one who mocks election results, let alone the citizenry of women, minorities, outsiders, "losers," protestors, foreigners, real and perceived opponents, and the physically disabled.

Is there still much point arguing who’s more corrupt, more imperious, more addicted to self-serving claims and dreamworlds? That devolves into what terms and values apply, without sufficient concern for real-world ripples. When we strip away incriminating baggage clinging to Clinton and Trump; campaign shenanigans; indecent, offensive electioneering; even the correlation of promised sound bites to White House action . . . here's the last measure standing: support for majority rules vs. elevation of minority dominance.

Consensus vs. Mayhem

In these terms, is there any debate? Fine, paint HRC with ruthless ambition, allergic to principled risk-taking (excepting '90's health insurance). And yet this vulnerability (profiting via entrenchment) ties in with this strength: she tests the waters, pinpointing the safe midstream, promoting many programs that serve the greatest good with the least career downside.  Shocking. Politicians prosper more with consistency than purity of vision or moral courage: favoring consensus is not about personal vagaries but getting stuff done.

Trumpism feasts on schism and put-down, not agreement or inclusion. He’s never before run for office because answering to a public majority beyond his direct control impedes his higher motivation, self-glorying ambition. His GOP primary entrance did not anticipate winning, knowing what party resistance loomed; Trump wanted policy input, the joy of tweaking hypocrisy, certainly growing his brand. Except that politics is the ultimate team sport — and the Donald epitomizes the loner CEO whose triumphs — or bankruptcies — answer only to his glory or his infamy. No wonder he identifies with Putinesque strongmen whose control of the media, laws and government operations is a self-sustaining circle where concentrated power feeds on itself.

Thus Trump runs his business fiefdoms like a feudal lord, notably NOT public companies that share power with stockholders. Trump is the reborn Robber Barron, bragging when violating every obstacle (taxes, law, decency); that's why “vengeance is mine," acts the Donald, resistant to whatever challenges his core self-delusion, “I alone can solve everything.” As reactive as Hillary's political antenna is, in her words “listening, working, finding common ground,” Trump’s the polar opposite, the unsocialized, mean-spirited loner who glorifies himself — and mocks any motto like “stronger together” as rank nonsense, the default to a mass of "losers."

However crass and self-serving, competent politicians measure and foster popular support because they understand elections matter. They know power often depends on the intangible of public opinion, dependent on communal values and consensus. When has Trump ever sought wide common ground as his prime mover?  Indeed, his deviant campaign pushes divisive nastiness, embracing the dangerous minority of alt-right extremism. He delights in political incorrectness that scorns majority American values: on long-held Constitutional restraints, equal rights for women, religious and cultural tolerance, persistent immigration -- now displaced by radical, absurd logic true Americans must white, older, male and Christian. That’s why HRC polling touched 50%; DJT ceiling a hard 45%.

Does the Majority Grow —or Shrink?

When has Trump demonstrated even respect for majority rule? Not by defying the results of a national election so complex and decentralized that folly about rigging the count breaks the laugh-o-meter. Not by running a blundering campaign marked by eccentricity and malice -- or by warring against his own party leadership. Never before has a candidate so scorned winning over even a majority of top party echelon, thus a Trump win triggers a nasty, internal Republican war.

If Hillary wins, she will by necessity work hard to win over the majority, boosted by a Democratic Senate.  If Trump wins, why should he listen to more than the angry, insurgent minority behind his victory? Yes, with third and fourth parties, a minority president can pull together enough Electoral College votes. What then stops an unstable, minority president from pushing extremism? Not majority opinion he doesn't have; winning without a potential or workable majority invites deviance and autocracy, if not the ultimate delusion any individual can solve everything.

Even as one-term president, the potential Trump damage is inestimable. George W. (driven by Cheney) proved what happens when a savvy minority rules, when overlords lawlessly push bad wars, treating the majority as an obstacle to governance, not necessary partner. Thus W.’s disgrace upon departure. And compared to Trump, W. looks downright middle-of-the road, whose advisers understood the Constitution well enough to know when they violated it. That restraint depends on fearing the majority, even future elections, certainly the need for national teamwork — all not apparent in Trump’s playbook.  Not ten years ago, not in the primaries, not throughout the Trump campaign from hell.

So far, American history tracks a legacy of widening who defines the working, voting majority. Blacks, women, 18 year olds, minorities, gays. We now face another huge crossroad where one candidate offers the opposite vision to inclusion and fairer representation of all the people.  And most striking of all, that crossroad shines brightly in the open, despite all the smoke and mirrors of our messiest, darkest election.