Donald J. Trump, president-elect

While “interviewing” my Papa many years ago (1996) to document the family history, one of the themes was politics (JFK’s assassination; Vietnam; Watergate; etc). My Papa had very little to say; it’s as if, as long as he had something to build, he didn’t have much of a care for anything else.

I’m different. 🙂

So, assuming that you girls will wonder about my thoughts immediately after this 2016 election, I will paste in 2 emails that might help towards an answer.

——————————————————————–

Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving!
From: “Mark Johnson”
Date: Sun, November 27, 2016 9:35 am
To: “Sherisse Hawkins”

> Still having a hard time with politics in fact I’m having nightmares about
> it :-(.

Yikes; that’s not good.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that I did not
vote for Hillary.

Pause.

Now, our relationship has been tested here; if you, for even a moment,
thought “HE VOTED FOR TRUMP!?”, then you need to be punished; no chocolate
for the next week.

In the CA primary I voted for Bernie; in the general I voted for Gary
Johnson. My primary opinion of Hillary: she would get nothing done
domestically (due to Republican control), her administration would be
under constant attack from the Right, and in terms of foreign affairs I
find her much-much too hawkish. There are many scenarios where Bernie (who
stood a chance of winning the general) or Gary (who did not) would also
fail their agenda domestically, but I don’t think they would go off and
play Army on other peoples front lawns. Hillary likely would.

And, to be clear about principle over pragmatism (or, put another way,
conscience over winning): I made my choice (not to vote for Hillary) long
ago, well before Trump was the nominee. So I didn’t rationalize my vote
(“Hillary will win CA anyway, so I can afford this protest vote”). Had
Kasich won the Republican nomination, I would have looked more into him
for my vote.

Now, Donald J Trump.

Here is what I find depressing:

1. The extreme amount of tribalism; this is a deterioration from the toxic
partisan atmosphere that has formed of late. Tribalism is at complete odds
with democracy; the two cannot co-exist.

2. The protesters, unwilling to accept the outcome. These are likely the
same folks who elicited shock when DJT suggested at the third debate that
he may not accept the outcome if Hillary were to win.

3. Women who didn’t like Hillary, but voted for her for gender reasons
alone. This too is tribal. If there were less of these people around
during the primary, maybe Bernie would have done better. He was the better
candidate (IMHO).

4. Republicans (not all of them) who disregarded most of their party’s
platform and rhetoric, most of their morals and values, and most of their
sense of decency by voting for DJT. This is the same party that chose
Romney in 2012?? Rank hypocrisy.

5. Everyone who voted for DJT. They neglected the importance of character
in a President. They placed domestic concerns over foreign concerns, even
though the domestic agenda is much (much) more controlled by Congress than
the Executive branch. In response to their valid concerns, they voted for
a complete neophyte in the most important position of the country, but
then also voted for all their entrenched Congressional incumbents. The
schizophrenic nature of these two opposing actions is stunning.

6. Conversely, the media. Not because they *didn’t* cover DJT sufficiently
enough; but because they set up every non-DJT voter with the impression
that he could permanently and disastrously ruin America. This was too
extreme.

The theme throughout all of the above is my disappointment in American’s.
This is the reason I resisted returning to America after Europe in ’92;
after three years as an expatriate, I had a huge amount of respect for the
American story (despite all its blemishes), but much less respect for the
participants.

Now people are freaking out: their tribe lost; DJT is going to ruin
America; the first woman candidate was scorned; a (fill in the blank:
misogynist, racist, incompetent, all of the above) man is now President of
the USA.

OK, I may have provided nitro for your nightmares, so let me attempt to
extinguish the flames. Much of what follows is complete and utter
speculation.

1. The liberal agenda has been blocked the last 6 years by Republicans in
Congress. In fact, going back to 1994 (Newt Gingrich’s revolution), the
primary message from Republican politicians has been obstruction. Now the
Republican politicians are entirely in charge; there is no shirking the
responsibility or subsequent performance of their leadership. America has
ridded itself of the petulant punk sitting in the back of the class
hucking spitballs, by putting him behind the teachers desk. As long as you
don’t believe the country is vulnerable to anarchy, this can be a good
thing.

2. A liberal or progressive agenda might be better served by 2-4 years of
Republican leadership, versus 8 years of Democratic leadership. It’s the
(tired) pendulum metaphor: Obama likely could not have been elected after
Bill Clinton (or any Democrat); America needed an incompetent like Bush to
get us to Obama.

3. Cracks in the wall. Republican politicians have always been
significantly better than Democratic politicians at forming a united
front. That has started to crack over the years (see Freedom Caucus;
Tuesday Group; etc). There is a good chance this administration will bring
down the Republican united front.

4. Broken promises. Many Republican politicians or power brokers who
supported (or even didn’t) DJT thought many of his campaign promises (the
wall; deportation; a religious litmus test; investigate Hillary) were
fiction. Many citizens who voted for DJT did not. If these campaign
promises do not come to fruition (which is very likely), the cynicism of
politics will do great harm to the Republican brand (albeit this could
indirectly effect the US as well; the country is only as strong as the
faith of its constituents).

5. Business as usual. In the end this is less about DJT, and more about
Republicans. Yes, Democrats lost. Yes, DJT is the President. But if you
look at who is filling his administration, this much is clear: it’s the
usual suspects. Democrats may not like them in terms of their ideology,
but they are sane, experienced, pragmatic people. That’s not to say that
harm can’t be done; the effects of Bush’s tenure (wars and recession and
unemployment) are vast and debilitating; but they didn’t paralyze the
country. There is a difference, albeit hard to see up close in real time.

I’m still processing all this as well. But as you know, one has to look
back, but only briefly, to inform the actions to take looking forward. If
(for example) enough people in the Rust Belt are so disempowered that they
would vote for DJT, maybe the Democratic establishment will start to give
their valid concerns some attention. I suspect there are many citizens who
think that Democrats are more vested in identity politics (transgender
rights, for example) than the plight of the disenfranchised and
economically insecure.

So maybe, in all, this will be a good thing.

Maybe. 🙂

mark

———————————————————————–

Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving!
From: “Mark Johnson”
Date: Mon, November 28, 2016 3:36 pm
To: “Sherisse Hawkins”

Everything here is, of course, my opinions only; worth what you paid.

> Should I force myself to learn more about history or politics?

No; not only is this unreasonable, it’s doomed to fail. With the exception of work, how we invest our time directly corresponds to our interests.

Prior to voting (for all offices, propositions, etc), it *is* important for any citizen to be:

1. Aware of their value system, in absolute terms

2. To be willing to do the requisite last minute homework; this is measured in hours, not minutes, but also not days (eg > 24 hours).

3. To have the proper resources available to fulfill the homework requirement.

Many citizens fail on some or all of these. For example, many Evangelical voters were absolute in their moral convictions, until DJT come along. Many people leaned on partisan resources to fill an intellectual void that required more honest brokering.

> Did I seriously consider any other candidates beside Bernie and Hillary?

Don’t fret; most people dismiss entirely the notion of political parties beyond the usual 2 suspects. For them, I think it’s more about winning (which gets back to your sports analogy, which I entirely agree with) than principle (or, put another way, short term over long term).

Read this link, for example; a poll of 26 conservatives, libertarians, and independently minded progressives, and even though most are antagonistic about Trump, nearly 20% say they won’t vote (versus voting for a 3rd party).

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-american-conservative-presidential-symposium/

You are not alone.

> And why do we still have the electoral college?

Good question. I think the answer is as simple as “status quo”; before the 2000 election there wern’t any recent real world examples to argue overturning it. And even in 2000 the popular vote was close enough (Gore was about 534,000 votes, or about .5%, ahead of Bush) that any momentum to overturn it was moot.

There needs to be more light shined on the only (realistically) reason the system was enacted: our esteemed Founders were compromising to be “fair” to the slave states (slaves would not be counted in the popular vote, since they could not vote; they would, however, be counted in the electoral college – well, counted as 3/5ths. Yikes.). When logic doesn’t work, try shame. 🙂

It’s almost impossible to get rid of by the Article V amendment process, because only 13 states can block ratification. One party or another will always be likely to smell disadvantage in the next election from such an amendment, and rustle up enough “no” votes to block it.

You want to effect change? Campaign for this (it’s not yet been passed in CO). http://www.nationalpopularvote.com (just read the top paragraph).

> I also don’t understand why something like abortion is a platform for how
> our country should be run and the fiscal decisions we make.

For better or worse, abortion is a factor because the political parties use it as a wedge issue (which gets out the voters).

That said, there is a way to de-emphasize the issue. There is a principled position (either for or against abortion), and there is a pragmatic (compromised) position. This year Hillary took the principled approach (although I would argue she wasn’t being principled; she was being political, digging in with her core constituency. The Clinton’s are known more for their polling than their value positions). Here is one view:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-hillaryclinton-abortion-campaign-20160209-story.html

Still, I don’t think this issue hurt her more than other issues.

> But I think more scientific thought should be taught and regarded but
> that is alienating Christian viewpoint.

In my mind the issue is one of sophistication; American’s don’t have enough of it. When science speaks intellectually about evolution (or about some rock being 1 million years old), Christians take offense and disregard all of science (howzabout some moderation, folks?). Same goes when science discusses galaxies, pre-natal life, climate change, etc. We love the computer mouse and our iPhone, but those are products of a store, not intense R&D; right?

During my epic bike ride through Oregon in September, thru VERY rural country, there was a sign (amongst many) that said “Don’t always trust your brain”. I wish I had taken a picture of it.

But, in terms of the politicization of science (or anti-science), here is one push back:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-republican-party-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/

> I spoke at a fundamentalist Christian book convention (interesting story

I’d love to hear that one!

> Our founding fathers
> and their debates about things much more subtle would be upset. Well,
> maybe
> I’m just guessing here I actually have no idea (back to not being educated
> on this) how they acted or led. It’s just what’s in my mind from 4th grade
> history propaganda. Perhaps they argued about the same type of shit.

Yeah, sorry to disappoint. Google “Polman 1800”, or try this:

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/11/jefferson_v_adams_was_the_clin.html

Or this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/10/19/this-school-is-holding-a-presidential-election-but-not-the-one-you-think/

There are plenty of examples. Politics has never been clean; competition for power and influence rarely are.

> QFM: Do you think most people have the time and interest to NOT follow a
> tribe mentality?

There are no centrist tribes (that’s an oxymoron); they only proliferate on the fringe (left or right). The question is one of distance: Even if someone doesn’t embrace the right or left extreme (tribal) positions, if those are the predominant positions then voters still have to conclude which they will subscribe to (which positions they are closest to). This introduces much more than a simple rounding error (“You voted for a racist?” “Um, no…”).

The challenge for democracy is for institutions (mostly media), people, and politicians to nurture and support a centrist idealism. Compete against the fringe players for the attention of voters; people will (willingly yet unknowingly) shed their tribal attire once they enter a centrist tent of reason that they feel much more akin to. For comedic input, The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/) would have to be leveraged.

Media? Social media companies (in particular) need to be held accountable for facilitating the spread of misinformation. Since they are dealing with a narcissist, reporters must refuse to treat DJT like a normal president and refuse to bestow any unearned legitimacy on his administration. [Stole this from https://thinkprogress.org/when-everything-is-a-lie-power-is-the-only-truth-1e641751d150#.ixluabjyl).

People and Politicians? This is joined at the hip with media, since media are the ones to get the message out. But in essence there are plenty of success stories of local (city) people and politicians, from different political persuasions, working together to fix their local problems. Voters need to be reminded that not only did this used to happen at the National level, it still happens successfully at the local level. http://www.theatlantic.com/projects/city-makers-american-futures/

> I disagree
> with you about being mad that trump said he wouldn’t accept defeat and
> then
> not accepting it myself.

I concur with you that we don’t want racism and sexism and xenophobia to become normalized; and I encourage anyone to march to that effect. But that would be a case of not capitulating to notions of racism, sexism or xenophobia. Contrast that with people protesting the outcome of the election, or the validity of a Trump administration. That boat has sailed.

> QFM Am I just as bad as the other side?

Put aside the idea that the other side is bad. 🙂

Voters are the pawns; the political process has been hijacked by people who either never had leadership-type qualifications, or they did but these qualifications were jettisoned in the pursuit of power (as addictive as that might be). The envelope was pushed out, the tribes naturally formed, and a white-noise information-lacking feedback-loop machine called the media (Trump grabs pussy! Hillary’s emails! Trump grabs pussy! Hillary’s emails! Trump grabs pussy! Hillary’s emails! Trump grabs pussy! Hillary’s emails!) dropped napalm in the center, creating a huge DMZ zone.

> QFM Am I just as bad as the other side when it comes to not accepting
> their religion?

The challenge (on all sides) is one of moderation, understanding, and acceptance. The higher pitch the rhetoric, the less likely there will be a truce. You have to want a relationship with someone on the “other side”, more than you want to defend or sell your position. It is possible to be vested in both.

I value the mind over the heart; fact over fiction; proof over faith. But, I know there are many very smart people, some of whom are in the STEM fields, who are devoutly religious. If I can’t rationally take these people on in a debate, then I also can’t take on the simple citizen who is less able to articulately defend their faith.

A high school friend who I’ve gotten much closer to these past ~15 years is very religious (Catholic); just as I know where he stands, he knows where I stand. Regardless, we value our friendship, our perspectives, our morals and values (we were in Napa two weekends ago, camping in his driveway with our Westfalia, having late night discussions. http://lifeofannika.com/year/13/images/PumpkinRoll/). It’s not hard, but then it might seem too easy since he and I both came to the table with moderation, understanding, and acceptance in hand.

Plus, we had a bottle of wine; there is almost always a bottle of wine.

> QFM Am I just a spoiled baby boomer/GenX that hasn’t experienced real
> strife in their adult lifetime?

Oh my gosh, no.

> foolishly thought the world was going to improve?

Um…maybe. 🙂 Or, you forgot how to think non-linearly due to the Obama years; you were still buzzed from 2008. Roads close, detours have to be made. In this way, you can still leverage Obama as your muse; I suspect he’s not finished building his legacy.

Out of necessity, you will once again be immersed in non-linear thinking; you will likely meet new friends (https://www.facebook.com/events/1638075409825947/ ?); and undoubtedly you will influence much more than you will be influenced, because you add more to any equation.

> We will alway persecute each other right? The majority will
> always abuse power. This has always been the case…..is it getting less?
> I have no idea? Am I an idiot to hope that this will ever improve?

It’s human nature to be tribal. Any atheist or even agnostic likely believes in Darwin’s “Survival of the fittest”. So, yes, the majority (for whichever category) will always abuse (not only externally to the minority, but internally to each other). Still, many members of the majority, as well as the minority, will not tolerate this status quo at some point. They will resist their inclination towards tribalism. They will resist their natural urge to survive at the expense of others, even if they are the fittest. They will empathize with those not in their camp. They will risk ostracization to defend ideals over group think.

Or at least that’s what I hope. Consensus is the bedrock of democracy; cerebrally we all know how to get there. The question is just who wants to take the journey, and who can persuade the others to come along anyway.

Or something like that.

mark