Well, I made my recommendation to the management, and they did not accept it. Donald Trump is going to be the next president. Donald Trump is going to be the next president. Donald Trump has been elected to serve for the next four years as the President of the United States. Donald Trump is going to be the next president.
Sorry to type that so many times, but I'm still pretty solidly in the denial stage.
When Donald Trump won the Republican primary, I thought that my party was broken. But I thought Mr. Trump would be crushed in the general election, that the fringe elements of the base would be properly humiliated, and that the party would be forced to examine itself and correct for a world that is increasingly diverse and cosmopolitan. I was wrong. The Republican party is not broken; it is dead. The party that organized itself around fiscal conservatism and family values (and military spending and active foreign policy and abortion and gun rights) is dead. The electoral map has changed, the base has changed, and that party has disappeared. But it has been seamlessly replaced by a new party - a party large enough to win a presidential election - that calls itself Republican but is not what I was introduced to growing up. It must have been there all along, metastasizing in birthers and the Tea
Party; but I didn't want to see it. Now that it's here, however, I am
trying to come to grips with it, and to understand what it is.
As far as I can tell, it is a new kind of coalition. It's a coalition that's weaker than the old one in Utah and stronger than the old one in Wisconsin, that's even less aligned with Californians and even more aligned with Floridians. It's weaker in Arizona and Nevada, but stronger in Maine and Pennsylvania.
What do I know about this new coalition, aside from its geography? Well, the one thing I know for sure about this new Republican party is that they elected Donald Trump. What does that say about the party? It's hard to generalize, especially since there are as many individual motivations for voting as there are voters; nevertheless, I'm going to try to infer a few general trends from the loudest parts of the Trump campaign and the loose collection of ideas that made up his platform. I think the result might be predictive of what this new party will stand for in the years to come (although making predictions about the future is something I'm apparently terrible at doing).
The new party distrusts the media. Deeply. Never has a candidate for president been so widely denounced by the media, including an unprecedented number of Clinton endorsements or Trump anti-endorsements from conservative newspapers. The new party does not trust these sources.
The new party hates Hillary Clinton. Perhaps even more than they hate the media.
The new party will vote for a candidate who is not easy to pin down on most issues, but whose most consistent stances include the following:
1) Mexicans take away our jobs and commit violent crimes, and no Muslim should be allowed to enter the country without "extreme vetting".
2) The Second Amendment should not be repealed.
3) Manufacturing jobs exist, are currently in China, and can be returned to the United States.
4) The US is too involved overseas.
5) Law and order is at risk in the United States, and tougher policing must be the response.
Finally, the new party has come to terms with electing a man who was caught on tape speaking about trying to sleep with a married woman and bragging about how he can get away with groping women he considers attractive. Although, given their distrust of the media, they might believe that the tape was faked, and/or that the alternative was a woman who routinely gets away with murdering people (despite being unable to get away with a private email server).
I do not belong to this new party. My registration is still Republican, but it is a symbolic gesture, an act of respect to the best parts of a flawed party that now no longer exists.
I thought the Republican party would be doing a lot of soul-searching after this election. Turns out they don't exist anymore, and I'm doing the soul-searching instead.
No wonder I can't sleep tonight.
Morning after update: I should be clear that I do not believe that all Trump voters hold the views I outlined above. I just think they represent the most likely version of what a party platform based on this election would look like. People vote for parties even when they disagree with some or most of the ideas, and I understand that. I still love you even though you voted for Trump.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Job Interview
The election is sometimes characterized as an eighteen-month job interview. Since that's about seventeen months too long, it's no surprise that we've wandered very far afield from the fundamental questions that should be asked about a presidential candidate. While this can be interesting - it's a good forum to discuss economic theories, for instance - it ultimately is a distraction from what the job is and what the qualifications should be. I'd like to take a moment to talk about the election in the context of what it is that a president actually does.
Presidents run the executive branch. They take the role of commander in chief (a role which has expanded to allow them to run entire wars without the explicit consent of Congress, more's the pity), they represent our nation at the highest diplomatic level, and they recommend legislation to Congress. They do not make laws (although they can veto them) and they certainly do not rule on the constitutionality of laws (the closest they come is in nominating Supreme Court candidates which then have to be confirmed by the Senate). So, while it's interesting that Donald Trump wants to revoke the Affordable Care Act and Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, suggesting the idea to Congress is about as far as they can go to get either of those goals accomplished.
Of course, that's a bit of an understatement. Because so much of the campaign focuses on these issues, the suggestions of a newly elected president carry the weight of the electorate, and can help Congress get moving on an issue or two. But just ask Barack Obama how long that honeymoon lasts - the answer is not much longer than the time to pass the Affordable Care Act.
My point is that the main jobs of a president are outward-facing, whether that's providing military oversight or diplomatic influence or just serving as a living symbol of America.
With that in mind, my positions on those outward-facing issues are by no means finalized. Our place in the world is a complicated issue. Having grown up with the disastrous Iraq war and the way it exacerbated the state of terrorist activity instead of curbing it, my instincts are isolationist; just leave the world alone and get back to work at being the best country we can be. I have to admit, however, that I'm glad we intervened in World War II, and that if such a situation arose again, I would hope I would have the nerve to act.
There are, however, a few issues I consider sacred. One of those is immigration. I agree with the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I feel strongly that opening our doors to immigration has been one of the principal strengths of the United States. The influx of immigration has made us tolerant, productive, strong, and populous. Where other developed countries face stagnating labor pools, we continue to grow because of immigration. It seems painfully obvious to me that the aging demographics that threaten to bankrupt Social Security could be remedied by an influx of young, ambitious immigrants. It seems equally obvious that each immigrant not only takes a job but also consumes goods and creates the need for more jobs. It's my understanding of the research that immigrants are in general less likely to be criminals than native-born Americans; it's my understanding of history that many of our great figures have come from humble beginnings and foreign shores.
But even if it wasn't good economic policy, I would still support immigration. I support it because I believe every human being who craves freedom should be welcomed to my country. I support it because the best way to lift a person out of poverty and make them a maximally productive part of the global economy is to bring them to America. I support it because I think America is almost the only country on earth where you can become truly American without having been born here, and that is something I am deeply humbled and grateful to be a part of.
Mr. Trump has recommended building a wall with Mexico; I think we should expedite Mexican immigration so that there is no need for any decent person to risk death trying to enter America. Mr. Trump has offered to ban all Muslims from entering the country in the name of preventing terrorism. To make a personal analogy, this sounds to me like trying to prevent polygamy by evicting all the Mormons (just as the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, the vast majority of modern Mormons condemn polygamy, and denounce the zealous, unsanctioned sects who participate in it).
Secretary Clinton has a rather elitist take on immigration, wanting to let in educated people and continue our policy of shutting out the "huddled masses" mentioned in the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. But in this election, I'll take what I can get.
Another issue I feel strongly about: not kowtowing to Russian dictators. The current administration seems rather impotent in the face of Putin's aggression, and I can't imagine Hillary will do much better. However, she isn't asking him to compromise our national security or praising him for his "strength" (I would argue that a moral person should see that the "strength" of a dictator is truly just a sign of crippling internal weakness). Again, in this election, I'll take what I can get.
The last issue to mention here is that I wish we had an honorable person to represent our nation. To discuss this in too much detail would drive this post back into the distractions from policy that have dominated this election, and will also set me up in judgement on two souls I do not personally know. I will only say, based on the information available to me, that the evidence against Mr. Trump's character is taken from his own words spoken in public and on camera, while the evidence against Secretary Clinton is indirect and centered around less damning crimes. If I must choose between a machiavellian manipulator and a narcissistic, ignorant, hateful predator (and, again, I can't in good faith claim to know for certain that's what either of them are), I think I'll take the manipulator.
So that's it. That's what I wanted to say. The job interview has gone on too long, and in the end neither applicant meets my hiring criteria. One of them seems somewhat indifferent to the things I think are important for a strong job performance; the other one hates them. I'll take indifference. I'll take what I can get. And if what I can get is someone who won't actively destroy the things I hold dear, I think that's actually worth fighting for.
Hence the blog post. And hence, more importantly, the determination to vote. This one matters.
Presidents run the executive branch. They take the role of commander in chief (a role which has expanded to allow them to run entire wars without the explicit consent of Congress, more's the pity), they represent our nation at the highest diplomatic level, and they recommend legislation to Congress. They do not make laws (although they can veto them) and they certainly do not rule on the constitutionality of laws (the closest they come is in nominating Supreme Court candidates which then have to be confirmed by the Senate). So, while it's interesting that Donald Trump wants to revoke the Affordable Care Act and Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, suggesting the idea to Congress is about as far as they can go to get either of those goals accomplished.
Of course, that's a bit of an understatement. Because so much of the campaign focuses on these issues, the suggestions of a newly elected president carry the weight of the electorate, and can help Congress get moving on an issue or two. But just ask Barack Obama how long that honeymoon lasts - the answer is not much longer than the time to pass the Affordable Care Act.
My point is that the main jobs of a president are outward-facing, whether that's providing military oversight or diplomatic influence or just serving as a living symbol of America.
With that in mind, my positions on those outward-facing issues are by no means finalized. Our place in the world is a complicated issue. Having grown up with the disastrous Iraq war and the way it exacerbated the state of terrorist activity instead of curbing it, my instincts are isolationist; just leave the world alone and get back to work at being the best country we can be. I have to admit, however, that I'm glad we intervened in World War II, and that if such a situation arose again, I would hope I would have the nerve to act.
There are, however, a few issues I consider sacred. One of those is immigration. I agree with the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I feel strongly that opening our doors to immigration has been one of the principal strengths of the United States. The influx of immigration has made us tolerant, productive, strong, and populous. Where other developed countries face stagnating labor pools, we continue to grow because of immigration. It seems painfully obvious to me that the aging demographics that threaten to bankrupt Social Security could be remedied by an influx of young, ambitious immigrants. It seems equally obvious that each immigrant not only takes a job but also consumes goods and creates the need for more jobs. It's my understanding of the research that immigrants are in general less likely to be criminals than native-born Americans; it's my understanding of history that many of our great figures have come from humble beginnings and foreign shores.
But even if it wasn't good economic policy, I would still support immigration. I support it because I believe every human being who craves freedom should be welcomed to my country. I support it because the best way to lift a person out of poverty and make them a maximally productive part of the global economy is to bring them to America. I support it because I think America is almost the only country on earth where you can become truly American without having been born here, and that is something I am deeply humbled and grateful to be a part of.
Mr. Trump has recommended building a wall with Mexico; I think we should expedite Mexican immigration so that there is no need for any decent person to risk death trying to enter America. Mr. Trump has offered to ban all Muslims from entering the country in the name of preventing terrorism. To make a personal analogy, this sounds to me like trying to prevent polygamy by evicting all the Mormons (just as the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, the vast majority of modern Mormons condemn polygamy, and denounce the zealous, unsanctioned sects who participate in it).
Secretary Clinton has a rather elitist take on immigration, wanting to let in educated people and continue our policy of shutting out the "huddled masses" mentioned in the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. But in this election, I'll take what I can get.
Another issue I feel strongly about: not kowtowing to Russian dictators. The current administration seems rather impotent in the face of Putin's aggression, and I can't imagine Hillary will do much better. However, she isn't asking him to compromise our national security or praising him for his "strength" (I would argue that a moral person should see that the "strength" of a dictator is truly just a sign of crippling internal weakness). Again, in this election, I'll take what I can get.
The last issue to mention here is that I wish we had an honorable person to represent our nation. To discuss this in too much detail would drive this post back into the distractions from policy that have dominated this election, and will also set me up in judgement on two souls I do not personally know. I will only say, based on the information available to me, that the evidence against Mr. Trump's character is taken from his own words spoken in public and on camera, while the evidence against Secretary Clinton is indirect and centered around less damning crimes. If I must choose between a machiavellian manipulator and a narcissistic, ignorant, hateful predator (and, again, I can't in good faith claim to know for certain that's what either of them are), I think I'll take the manipulator.
So that's it. That's what I wanted to say. The job interview has gone on too long, and in the end neither applicant meets my hiring criteria. One of them seems somewhat indifferent to the things I think are important for a strong job performance; the other one hates them. I'll take indifference. I'll take what I can get. And if what I can get is someone who won't actively destroy the things I hold dear, I think that's actually worth fighting for.
Hence the blog post. And hence, more importantly, the determination to vote. This one matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)