Morning Fog

Hicks In The Sticks - Still Solidly Sensible?

The day after the U.S. presidential election, pundits suddenly came awake to the political/cultural division in our country between the citified folk and the hicks in the sticks (my term, not theirs). It seemed they had just noticed it, but if they were asleep to it before, one look at those county-by-county maps of the nation that were being shown as part of the pre-election coverage made it clear as a bell.  In state after state, urban areas showed up as blue spots, patches, or teardrops of varying sizes in a sea of red.  

[Incidentally, for those pundits, Morning Fog is pleased to point out that we were concerned about this trend some years ago - see for example "The Purple Ring" (2012) or "...Urban-Rural Dichotomy" (2010). Aaah, so what? - with that and about three bucks, we can get a cup of coffee at Starbucks!]

Moving on:

I confess, as the Starbucks reference shows, I'm "urban" these days - I live a stone's throw from Washington D.C., the belly of the beast, and I voted for Clinton (see earlier posts for reasons). Yet the parents who imparted me their values were basically small-town rural; they used phrases like "I wouldn't know him from Adam's off ox;" I was raised mostly on a series of military bases (real rurality!); and did military service. More than many in our current urban caste, I think, my wife and I still have a foot in the heartland, spiritually and even physically, having recently visited such spots as the California high desert and the coal and lumber country of central-western Pennsylvania.

With my mixed ruban (or urbal?) sensibility, I've always figured the American voter, particularly the small-town one, was a rock of level-headedness. I credited them/us with common sense, common decency, and the ability to see through dishonesty; to know that cream rises to the top, but so does scum; and shit floats too.

But if I could address the non-urban voters who we are told put Donald Trump into office, I'd have to say my belief in that general principle was shaken more than a little by this month's election results. I'm puzzled how you could have been hornswoggled by such a snake oil salesman; considered his wild promises to be anything but ludicrous; been unconcerned about his lack of moral character and common decency; or failed to detect, from his erratic behavior and paranoiac statements -- and here's where he really stands out from his opponent -- that he maybe ain't quite right in the head. 

Am I wearing blinders? Will future developments prove that the heartland still beats true?  Maybe. I can even think of a few ways that Trump, ass that he is, could solve a couple of this country's longstanding issues. But his latest tweetery of denial, rage, and baseless fabrication on the subject of election "rigging" doesn't offer much hope.

I guess the "good" news is that in so many places, the supremacy of nonsense over common sense is razor-thin, and may be restored with just a few people returning to their senses. But that's just my two-senses' worth.    

Nightmarish Forecast

The very day after the election, the Washington Post ran this banner headline in its "style" section: "Our National Nightmare Is Over!"  This was one of those twerpy, feel-good sorts of things, intended I suppose to help people put the election behind them and feel jolly. Maybe some actually will be buoyed by the advice offered, e.g. "just get back on Facebook" or remind yourself that your "true citizenship is in heaven." (Ye gods!)  The profoundly gullible might even believe the statement that "there are things we never, ever have to go through again," like debates and October surprises. (REALLY? Where are those going to go before the next election?)

Overall though, I think that for most of the country - at least those who were a part of the popular-vote majority, and in due time, probably a lot of the others too - would find it more realistic to consider that the nightmare has just begun.

We begin from the premise that we accept the results. The people have spoken, get on with it. Some of the kids in the streets seemingly disagree, but they have lots of energy to burn and the rest of us are not going to protest, not publicly anyway. The nightmare, though, isn't in what occurred, nor even in what Trump says he wants to implement, but in the separation that so clearly remains among us, which I hope to come to in a later post. It's also in the divisive currents that our President-Elect chose to arouse and enliven -- racism, sexism, xenophobia, paranoia, violence, media-bashing, questioning the legitimacy of our political system (to name but a few). Do all Trump voters share these views? Of course not, most do not. But consider the reverse: Those in the country who DO share these views voted for Trump. Their themes will continue to fester and erupt, as in fact they already have with white kids taunting Latinos in our schools.

Perhaps there was hope, in Trump's acceptance speech, where he spoke of healing wounds and being the President of all the people, that he would try to calm those currents? The early evidence is not encouraging, since his reaction to demonstrations as of this morning was to suggest they were fomented by "the media" and it wasn't fair! To him!  A statement worthy of a 12-year-old spoiled child.  Anyway, I note that Trump's demeanor suggested he must have been heavily drugged to enable him even to make such a statement. Yes, I know that isn't "fair" to Trump, so in fairness, I'll point out that winning Presidents always say such things. George Bush did, but did nothing more about it; Barack Obama did, and tried to take some steps, but was utterly rebuffed by the Republican establishment in Congress, and that meanness of spirit will likely cure any future Pres-Elect of trying to extend an olive branch to the opposition.

So the forecast is for continuing storminess, increasing chill on the way, exacerbated by high winds originating from a blowhard settling in over Washington, D.C. It won't be just Clinton supporters who feel it. All things considered, I think we're in for a longish nightmare, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, by concrete action. 

Update:  This just in 30 minutes after posting: in the light of day, and presumably after being admonished by one or another of his advisors, Trump revised his view of the protesters with this new tweet: "Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!" Make of that what you will, but at the least we see a mind whose first inclination is to respond to events abruptly and petulantly.  

 

 

Trumpshock

Trump won. Hillary lost. More time (at the very least some statements from the successful candidate) will be needed to assess the meaning of this election.  We must be satisfied to hope for the best, while justifiably fearing the worst. 

For now, I consider the idea of "shock," much used by this morning's talking heads. They were shocked. Yet they are the experts; shouldn't they have been the least shocked? Many of the rest of have been uneasy for months; I think that's because there were caution flags that we tried to ignore.

First was the natural rhythm of American politics. Most commonly, eight years of one party, then the other takes a turn. It was the Republican turn. The election was the GOP's to lose.

Second, the candidate. Clinton was a weak and uninspiring candidate with too many faults, a poor grasp of what she was facing, and a poorly conceived campaign. Her media efforts seemed focused exclusively on sowing fear and loathing (of Trump) among groups and in states she could probably have counted on anyway; far less did she appear to reach out to firm up support among disgruntled traditional Democratic party supporters in rust belt states. An exceptional win (a third consecutive Democrat) would have required an exceptional candidate. 

Finally, the polls. Admittedly, pollsters have a tough time these days because they have no way to reach all levels of society - particularly not those "less-educated rural white voters" they tell us were/are Trump's key supporters. So we ought to have been doubly suspicious of the way polls showed Clinton in trouble ten days before the election, but suddenly predicted on election eve that she could or would win North Carolina, Florida, or Ohio. 

Bottom line? I'm not buying into "shock." We probably should have known better.  

Bottomer line? I doubt it would have altered the outcome.

 

 

More Fundamental Than Issues

Yesterday, I suggested that neither voters nor candidates in U.S. presidential elections appear to think that "issues" are germane to the process of electing our country's political leader/chief of state/commander-in-chief.

There is plenty of evidence for that assertion. But even if we assume it's false, and issues really do matter, the simple reality of this election is different. To me, it seems that factors of credibility, morality, ethics, trust, and veracity are even more fundamental to being a good President than policy plans. By those measures alone, I would cast my vote for Clinton. If issues aren't important, and character isn't important either, what is left? 

Admittedly Hillary falls short, even far short, of perfection on a couple of those scales. But Donald is egregiously imperfect on all of them, and he is proud of it. The word "deplorable" as a noun has taken on some currency in this campaign. Trump himself is the foremost exemplar of that category.  I don't believe that all Trump voters are. Far from it.  But often, we are judged by the company we keep. 

So I'll be hoping that most other Americans see things as I do, perhaps even that some intending Trump voters will change their minds on their way to the polls, because the Trump "phenomenon" should not be defeated by a hair's breadth, it should be defeated soundly.  

 

 

Trick-Or-Treater Politics

Halloween  was on a Monday this year, but shouldn't it have been a week later?  How appropriate would it have been if it were the day before the U.S. Presidential election?  Both major-party candidates have been masquerading for months, pretending that they can solve the nation's issues, put the country back on the right track, return power to the people ... or any of dozens of other ways they may choose to phrase it.  Do voters really buy into the masquerade?  I suspect they don't.

As I review my own experience over the course of 11 previous presidential elections, I'm finding increasing justification to believe that some of what we think we know about elections may no longer be valid.  It's not about policy! The view deserves at least a devil's-advocate hearing.

I've already opined (October 26) that we can't count on a President alone to effectuate real political change, nor even in some cases, to be able to drive things generally in the right direction. The same is true of economics, possibly even more so. A President cannot "create jobs" or change the shape of our economy, a huge shapeless beast comprising the momentary decisions and moods of individuals, businesses large and small, governments, and even nations. Neither our politics nor economy changes course easily; and often they do so in unpredicted ways. Presidents' effects are often marginal.

Realizing the limitations of the President may help explain why democratic elections (especially in the U.S.) increasingly don't turn on what many of us once were taught to believe are the "real issues."  What is Donald Trump's specific plan for getting rid of ISIS? What is Hillary Clinton's road map for ensuring social justice? It's the original "don't ask, don't tell" -- politicians don't tell us, and we don't ask. Instead, we rely on them to be true to predictable political dogma.  This leaves them free to drone on about their opponent's failings, be they real or imagined, rather than expressing their own positive features and characteristics.   That's a really strong indication that candidates think of themselves in the same way we do - i.e., "which is the lesser of two evils?"

Are the people taken in?  I have faith that they are not. Not only do they not bother to demand answers to "serious" questions, but realistically enough, they (we) vote on the basis of yardsticks other than political or economic promises. It boils down to that famous question four elections ago, "who would you rather have a beer with?" The people's answer was overwhelmingly "George Bush." And luckily for them, the Supreme Court agreed!