Election Reflections 3

We’ve had several weeks now to experience the Trump presidency. Here are some thoughts, not necessarily better than other people’s or more insightful, but my own.

Basic thought: We are too quick to condemn our political opponents and too quick to pardon our political friends.

Case in point 1: I think that Trump’s executive order to stop immigration from seven Muslim-dominant countries was ill advised and poorly executed. Many of my political friends have condemned it more thoroughly—calling it, for example, a ban on Muslims, and saying that it favours Christians unfairly.

I assume that two factors come into this description. The first is the seven-nation ban, which builds on action taken previously by the Obama administration. I think that the ban is nonsense (refugees by definition come from unstable areas), but it is not a Muslim ban per se. The second is the privileging of vulnerable groups from these nations—such as the Yazidis and Christians in Syria and Iraq. These latter groups have found the normal route to refugee status almost impossible, and seeking to help them is not wrong in itself.

It makes sense to me to oppose Trump’s executive order, and I support the efforts of those who have challenged it in the courts. That is the proper route for the challenge, and both sides must honour the courts’ ruling. It does not make sense to me to condemn Trump for taking the action he did. He has long said that he wants to strengthen immigration policies. I disagree with him, inasmuch as the United States’ immigration policies are already robust. I think he is chasing shadows, but I don’t condemn him for doing what he said he would do. My disagreement just tells you that I would vote against him.

Case in point 2: Trump appeared at the national prayer breakfast and suggested prayer for Schwarzenegger in his role on “The Apprentice”, given the latter’s poor ratings. Schwarzenegger in turn suggested that they switch roles and make everyone happy. Some of us reacted against Trump, stating that he has devalued the prayer breakfast with his levity.

I think that Trump acted inappropriately, but thoroughly in character. Contrasting his style with Obama at the same venue only tells us that they are two quite different people, which we already know. I see little point in condemning him for his actions.

Case in point 3: The Democratic minority in the house and senate is using any tactic that it can to slow down the republican agenda and to hold up or defeat Trump appointees. My Republican friends point to this as evidence of liberal perfidy.

But surely this is what minority parties normally do. Certainly the Republicans spent the past eight years holding up and trying to defeat Obama’s legislative initiatives, going so far as to refuse any vote on a Supreme Court nominee for – was it 10 months?

The underlying dynamic seems to be a deep conviction that the other side has no good in them. Comments on news stories online reinforce this perception. The practice of “trolling” has become commonplace—calling other people names and trying to force them off the site, rather than engaging them and seeking a common way forward.

That dynamic of division then becomes the policy of both parties. Neither accepts a path forward that allows the other to live. Condemned to live in such a country we can look forward to more bitterness and division. Now Republicans try to get all they want and freeze out the Democrats. When Democrats regain control (as they will: our system routinely moves back and forth between the extremes in our country), they in turn seek to enact only their own policies and undo Republican initiatives.

The fact is that Trump’s actual policies may be wrong—I think that most of them are (to the extent that we know what they are, and to the extent that I understand them)—but it really is time to follow the Republican lead. My own standing as a member of the Democratic Party is not the issue. Learning to hear each other and work with and for each other is more important.

A first step towards such collaboration is for us to critique our own. I look forward to hearing my Republican friends acknowledge and challenge Trump’s tendency to stir up fear and mistrust, and I look forward to hearing my Democratic friends acknowledge and challenge party leaders when they delay without cause. We have learned to justify our own too well; now we need to learn to criticize our own and actually understand the other.

More Election Reflections

We are not quite at the official action of the electoral college, and the inauguration of Donald Trump follows soon after. I expressed some of my thoughts after the election here, and we have all had time to reflect more on what lies ahead.

I remain cautiously hopeful that the next four years will work out—at least so far as life in North America is concerned, but I admit to increasing anxiety as new directions take shape. So here is a brief sample of my thoughts (as much to allay my own fears by expressing them as by a sense that anyone else need read them).

1. I said before that I am concerned with the way that we the people have validated bullying and vulgarity with our choice. That sense has not decreased. An account of the Michigan recount suggests that the Republican playbook is made up primarily of using political and legal might to force the desired outcome, rather than any real desire to do what is right.

2. The recounts are an interesting idea—not because they might change the outcome (I don’t think the outcome is in doubt; the hanging chads from Bush-Gore were far more serious), but because how people respond to the idea shows again what they think. Trump’s response was to say: No recount; the only true result is that I won (the popular vote too, not just the electoral college). Clinton’s response was to say: We’ll co-operate. What else would she say? The real opportunity was for Trump to show that he believes in the basic integrity of the state officials running the elections. Clearly he doesn’t. Which suggests that he believes that he was the only honest person in the election. That attitude troubles me.

3. Trump’s lack of concern for facts continues to bother me. I am not sure that he is actually any different in this regard than most Democrats. We have adopted the idea as a country that perspective is truth. If that idea is correct, we have no grounds for saying that Trump is not speaking the truth, just because we don’t like his ideas. Both sides of the aisle tend to applaud the facts when the facts support the truth they want. Both sides of the aisle tend to pretend the facts aren’t there when the facts support the truth they don’t want.

This last point is perhaps where we could begin a national conversation [not national: big conversation involving lots of people, but national: lots of small groups of people talking and trying to understand what’s going on]. We need to decide what to do with facts. It is a fact that biologically we have two genders. It is also a fact that a small minority of people are biologically mixed. We have ignored the facts on both sides: one group of people ignores the fact of people born with two sets of genitalia; one group of people ignores the fact of gender entirely and makes it all a matter of how one feels inside. But if we go only by how we feel inside, on what grounds do we refute Trump’s positions. That we don’t like them? Then “might makes right” becomes our national motto.

Similarly with global warming. The facts are clear [the globe is warming, and we are helping make it so]. How we interpret those facts, what we do with them, is a further and vital conversation. I could continue with most of the hard conversations in our society. We retreat too quickly into calling names (homophobe; radical; whatever name you think of for those people you don’t like). Many people have observed that we need a return to civility in public discourse. Such civility, I believe, requires also that we admit both the factness of the data of life, and the importance of perspective and interpretation in handling that data.

The question of who hacked whom during the election is one such arena. The CIA says, “The Russians.” (I think the CIA is right on this one.) The FBI says, “Not so fast.” Okay, let’s acknowledge that good and intelligent people regularly disagree, and let’s abandon the defensive response that says, “Your interpretation can’t be right, because I disagree.”

In my own field of study we call this process of trying to understand the world around us “critical realism”, a recognition that perspective matters, and an admission that reality remains beyond our limited perspectives. We need each other to cope with an increasing complex real world. Trump’s administration is set to roll. I hope they open up their ears and minds for the journey, and I hope we do too.

Election Reflections

Thanksgiving 2016—two weeks and a bit after the Election. Time for a few thoughts on what we have done this time

1. My candidate (to the extent that I had one) lost. That’s not unusual—I think I have voted for the loser in most elections, including for John Anderson, independent candidate in 1980. So being on the losing side does not disturb me as much as it might.

2. I feel one great grief: Trump made a point of acting the bully and braggart. We rewarded his display of petulance and anger by giving him the presidency. My grief is more for legitimization of bullying and for what that legitimization than for any of the issues at stake in the election.

People use words like misogyny and racism, hatred of women and of other ethnic groups. I don’t know if Trump acts like this in ordinary life (although his own words suggest that at least the maltreatment of women is part of his life). I do know that he acted as though these are acceptable ways for Americans to act. We agreed. For that I am sad.

3. I am less concerned about most of the policies a Trump Administration may pursue. Our political process works by giving both sides of the aisle input, and now it is the Republicans’ turn. One may observe that they played the obstructionist for the past eight years (“the party of no”), which subverts the process. But it is still their turn.

My one qualifier to this sense of acceptance is Trump’s stated extremism on immigration. He may moderate his stated views so that they are also more reasonable, but he has stoked fear of Muslims and Mexicans in ways that remain a problem for our country and for the world.

4. I appreciated the ease with which the Indiana government made it possible for Lois and me to vote. There has been much said about depressing the vote. Our experience was that a Red state made it as easy for these two Blue voters to participate as we could ask for.

5. Recounts. A good idea! The move to electronic voting seems cool, but a paper trail is more secure. In Manitoba we still mark paper ballots. It’s just harder to hack a paper ballot. I like that. So doing an intensive audit of votes in close races is good; it can promote confidence that the process is still fair.

I have many more thoughts, but this is enough. I am grateful this Thanksgiving for the many benefits I and my family have received. I am not always sure they are “blessings”, because “blessing” includes a clear awareness of God’s Reign; but we have at least received many good things living in North America. And I am grateful.

Election 2016

"Father forgive me, for I have sinned." I almost feel like going to confession. I had decide some years ago not to vote in American elections when I don't live there -- a decision strengthened by taking Canadian citizenship (dual American-Canadian). I decided when we moved here to vote in the country where I live and not in both the USA and Canada.

So I did not vote in this election. I almost have non-buyer's remorse. Almost.

But I can still say who I would have voted for (in my case, by absentee ballot in Indiana).
President: Clinton. I would have voted for Kasich given a chance. Character is important enough to me to vote against Trump. The character charges against Clinton seem to me to lack substance. (Benghazi: She should not tell us what she knew and did -- giving such information would be irresponsible. Computer server: Good grief! So she made a bad computer choice. Welcome to the world of people over age 60!) I dislike a second candidate from the same family, and I object to her dismissal of republican opponents as "deplorable", But Trump's short temper and readiness to operate by insult and threats makes him unfit (in my estimation) for the presidency. (See Ana Navarro's opinion piece on CNN for a devastating critique.

Senate: Evan Bayh (if I remember the candidate's name correctly). Indiana is so solidly Republican that it needs a Democratic senator.

On the whole I would like a "hung" government -- a Democratic president with a Republican congress -- with one proviso: that they learn to collaborate. We need Republicans and we need Democrats, and we need to learn to work together. If Trump wins, he will have to learn to be a different person. If Clinton wins, she will have to learn to respect and trust Republicans. Perhaps the friendship that has grown between the Bush family and the Obamas can serve as a model: Admit that those with whom we disagree are honourable and worth listening to.

A vote for Gary Johnson seems worthwhile to me: The Libertarian critique is worth taking on board, even if its vision of limited government is unrealistic. A vote for the Green candidate? Well, I have voted Green at least five times so far ....

Who will win as the votes are counted tonight? I hope we all will. I doubt that any of us will. I believe that Trump will be less able to destroy than we fear (even the president's power is limited). I believe that Clinton will be hamstrung by an uncollaborative Republican congress. I hope that I am wrong.

Neither candidate, neither party, can save the country. The candidates at all levels reflect the people who are voting, and we need to examine ourselves more than we need to denounce them. They have articulated our fear and anger and angst and unwillingness to compromise. As a Christian, I believe that only God can heal our personal fears, enabling us to work together to move into a better future.