One more day and our election fever will break.
If this guy was running for president, even on a Republican ticket, he would have my vote. Amen, brother!!!
Election Day. By the end of the day I will be either disgruntled or totally disgusted: disgruntled if Clinton wins or totally disgusted if Trump wins.
The first of the new seed catalogs came in. I usually get my orders in by early January so I have to really start evaluating what I did this year and what I want to do next year.
Well, I am totally disgusted. I had hoped not to see much of Trump's face again but woke to the news that he had won. Though disgusted, I am not really surprised. I have had nagging voices in the back of my mind ever since the nominations were set. Those voices kept reminding me of what a large part of the Democratic party supported Sanders far more enthusiastically than Clinton's supporters supported her, how the Trump supporters were voicing legitimate grievances (however viciously or loathsomely they did so), that statistics have been wrong before and might well be wrong again, that I really disagreed with much of Clinton's business as usual with minor tweaks agenda at the same time I was turned off by Trump's lies, bravado, scapegoating, and crudeness. Welcome to "Survivor: America!"
Thomas Friedman wrote an interesting piece for the NY Times on Trump's election. "Homeless In America" sums up the feeling quite well and he is describing psychological and spiritual homelessness not physical. That is something I have been feeling more strongly over the last few years.
Another interesting take the election two days past: "It can't happen here (but it just did."
I have seen a couple of comments blaming third party voters for the Trump win. I won't link because I am sure you have seen similar accusations in your readings. But I have to ask a different question: what about the two main party candidates induced those voters to go third party? The same question should be asked concerning those who didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton but did vote--for the down ballot candidates. And about those who simply didn't vote at all because the over all numbers in the presidential race were down significantly (especially on the Democratic side) compared to 2012.
Now this is an interesting idea given the fact that twice in the last 20 years the candidate who eventually "won" the electoral college did not win the popular vote. It would side step the usual route which would require a Constitutional amendment which would take 3/4 of the House and Senate plus the approval of 3/4 of the states to take effect. I can see two possible flies in that ointment: a candidate who, like Donald Trump, who would win if the electors were awarded under the current system would likely sue and "faithless" electors who decide not to follow the rules.
Post-truth election? Oh--yes--indeed!!! The truth simply did not matter. Facts did not matter. Most of our principles didn't matter.
I am still working out what I think about the election and its consequences. I have no idea what will happen but the portends aren't favorable--at least to me they aren't. I said some time ago that I followed politics to get a handle on what those bastards in power might do that would impact me and how it would impact me. The feminist phrase that come out of the late 1960s and 1970s that "the personal is political" is absolutely true. Can I, as a woman, expect anything good from a man who thinks of women as so much meat to be grabbed by any man who has the balls to do so and talks about his daughter as a "piece of ass?" I think not. Could I, if I were a business person, expect anything good from a man who thinks it good business to agree to buy goods or services at a set price and then decides, after receiving said goods and services, that he wants to "renegotiate" the deal? Again, I don't think so. I put that word in quotes because refusing to pay what you agreed to pay and then "offering" pennies on the dollar isn't renegotiation. It is fraud and theft. In the one case, being judged solely on my gender and limited by those judgements in everything I do or say, is deeply personal. But so is the second case since it directly impinges on whether I can sustain my business, my family, and my life. Now put the two together and the situation gets doubly personal.
Neal Gabler posted an interesting piece on Moyers & Company that reflects much of my last paragraph and extends it. He also wrote something that "I have been thinking" and on issues that transcend the political. We have to refocus our attention on the personal/local level. We don't have jobs that provide living wages? Well, as Dmitri Orlov once wrote there is always work. Work is what we do to sustain ourselves. Work is cooking dinner from scratch, raising some of our food in what ever space we have to stretch the inadequate amount of money our jobs provide--if we have a job at all. Are we worried about climate change and despairing because our political leaders can't see the urgency? Well, we can always make changes in our own lives and try to influence our local communities to take action. Are we concerned about sustainability and using resources sparingly in a world "consumed" by consumerism which encourages mindless consumption? Again, the better option would be to disengage with that culture and change our own lives. We need to do what Candide did at the end of Voltaire's novel: tend our gardens. That doesn't mean bad things won't happen because there are always assholes out there ready to tear down or appropriate what others build. And assholes who make use of the assets we built as a community while thinking that everything they have they got all by themselves so they don't have to contribute. But the "tend our gardens" strategy means we are a bit less dependent upon them.