Before I start this
blog post I want to come with some qualifiers.
First of all the main
reason that I am writing it is probably a need to get my emotions out there. Let me explain. I was
not at all surprised that Donald Trump won the election, and in fact did not
feel very much in the immediacy of the election result being announced - it was
as I expected. However, the reactions that came to the elections triggered a
lot of emotions in me. As I had expected the result I thought I was emotionally
fine, but after a couple of days now, I realize I need to put my thoughts and
emotions down in a more structured manner. Possibly, you don't really want to
read those - if so, I suggest you stop reading here.
A qualifier on Trump
himself. I find Donald Trump to be spectacularly unqualified to lead. More than
anything, he represents a lack of humanity and care about people, which is the
complete opposite of what I believe the world needs more of. I do not hold the
right to vote in the US, but if I did, there is no combination of circumstance
that would have me casting a vote for Trump. When I write about some policies
later one, I want to re-emphasize this - I personally find Donald Trump to be
the very representation of what I believe is wrong with leaders, perhaps in
particular political leaders - but I would extend it also to business and NGOs,
- today.
In the parallel
universe where I have a vote, I would normally not vote for Clinton either.
There are many things I admire about her, primarily I think she is actually
highly competent for the job in question, in terms of analysis, decision
making, experience etc. However, I also find that she lacks the qualities to
unite people behind a common purpose, to engage people beyond her own followers
emotionally, and that she very much plays the political game as opposed to seek
to lead the world. Therefore, I would normally not vote for Clinton. However,
in these elections, I absolutely would. I would possibly even campaign for her.
For two reasons. Firstly she is running against Donald Trump - see above. And
secondly, because she is a woman. I have often read, both before and after the
election, that you should not vote for someone because of their gender (man or
woman). In some future utopia I may hold that to be true. In this world, in
this day and age, I would absolutely vote for someone because they are a woman.
Not only if "all other things are equal" (that sentence anyway makes
no sense whatsoever in reality). But because I really believe the world
desperately needs more women in leadership roles, more female role models, and
less leadership from a male world view (which I, being a man, represent if I
want to or not). Therefore I would absolutely vote for Hilary Clinton because
she is a woman. And I would absolutely vote for her because she is running
against Donald Trump. And I think she is genuinely competent. I just wouldn't
vote for her in most other parallel universes.
I mentioned I am
writing this because I need to get out some emotions. The qualifiers are a part of that. As with
some many contentious issues, we have gotten to the point where we (or at least
I) are so afraid of being categorized, that it is almost impossible
to give an honest opinion without any qualifiers. That's a shame, really. But I
live in this world, so I do the same. You may choose to categorize and typecast
me anyway. For the record, I am 34 year old white, privileged man. I have had
access to education, I have been lucky enough to be picked up from the floor by
society and other people when I have failed, and most of my success, if I have
had any, I would ascribe to luck of the draw and to external circumstance. I
understand that everything I write in this post will be deeply provocative to
those who feel that someone like me will just never understand. I would tend to
agree - I think I never will. That is also why I realized I needed a channel to
sort my thoughts properly. In the last 48 hours I have posted random, probably
passive-aggressive posts and comments on various social media, which has in
fact been because of my lack of self-insight into my emotions on this, and the
need to vent. To you that have seen those and wondered "what the
fuck" - sorry about that.
So here goes.
6 months ago there
were three "highly unlikely events" where people around me were
asking "could it really happen?"
- Could the UK really choose to
leave the European Union? (Brexit)
- Could Trump really become the
next US President?
- Could Leicester City really win
the Premier League?
In conversations with
friends and family I honestly feel that I was the only one that said. Yes, not
only CAN the UK choose to leave the European Union - I honestly think they
will. And yes, not only CAN Donald Trump become President, I genuinely believe
he will. But no, there is no way that Leicester City can win the Premier League
- trust me.
Now, for the record
(for those that don't give a hoots ass about football), Leicester City won the
Premier League. In my world view, this event was about 100 times less likely
than any of the other outcomes. The reason being that winning a league title is
really not random at all. It requires very consistent atheltic and technical
performance over a long period of time by a lot of players. And those players
are set together mainly based upon a completely unfair and uneven financial
funding model. And Leicester City, being a small football team in England, just
really did not have any chance at all to win the Premier League. For the
record, the odds of them winning with the bookmakers were 5000/1. While people
may think that Brexit and Trump were surprises, the odds did not approach
anything in this stratosphere. Leicester winning the Premier League just
doesn't happen. Except it did.
Now, this immediately
puts my two other "predictions" into context. It is not as if I
understand something fundamental that nobody else "gets". It is just,
that from my point of view, Brexit and electing Trump makes a lot of sense. Actually,
the opposite makes no sense at all. Britain's voting to stay in the European
Union? Americans electing Hilary Clinton? If anything at all, looking back at
this, I am surprised that the margins weren't bigger. Probably that's because
people actually were scared by Nigel Farage and the Brexit brigade and landed
on "remain", and people actually could not possible accept Trump as
President and therefore voted for Hilary. I think that's why it was quite
close. I know this is very opposite to most views, which go that people were
scared into Brexit and lied to and manipulated into voting for Trump. Each
their own reality I guess.
So how about Brexit
and Trump then?
When discussing these
events with close friends beforehand I stated quite clearly that I thought they
would happen. Most of my friends reacted with some level of curiosity as they
know me well enough to generally not represent those opinions. I think there
are many levels to approach this, and I will try to explain it from a couple of
different angles. Let me just start (and close) with stating that this is a
result of real fundamental things about our societies not functioning at all.
And I really mean at all.
But I will start
somewhere else
In the last months I
have said that if nothing else, Trump is right about one thing. The polls are
way off. I think that those who believe some radical shift happened in the last
minute or days are really just not seeing polling for what it is. Rubbish. In
my opinion, and I stated this to everyone I spoke with before the elections,
the main reason Trump will score lower in polls is because it is socially
unacceptable for many people to vote for him. If you survey men on whether they
watch porn on the internet, and even the amount of porn they may watch, even in
completely anonymous surveys, you will get quite low numbers. For most men, not
only are we embarrassed towards others stating that we watch porn. We are
embarrassed towards ourselves. Therefore it doesn't really happen. Not really at
all. Not even if we surveyed ourselves would it happen. And it happens even
less if we are surveyed. Nobody votes for Trump. Or at least, for very many
people, voting for Trump is just "not who I am". Psychologists call
parts of this cognitive dissonance. Angry media call this lying. Well, call it
what you want. The polls are way off. I think a real interesting question (for
someone else to explore), is why something that we want to do (by instinct,
habit, emotion or otherwise) becomes taboo. When stating your opinion in a poll
becomes taboo, most social scientists know that the results cannot be used in
quantitative analysis. At best, you may be able to draw some qualitative
conclusions from them.
Yet here we are,
surprised by the polls being wrong. Last night, on Norwegian television, there
was a statistician on, who boldly predicted that "now that we have
another data point, all we need to do is re-calibrate our models, and then they
are better and more accurate for next time". Oh my dear God! My reaction
to this was that I wanted to apply for a visa to the planet he lives on.
Because in that planet everything must just make perfect sense. And that must
be such an easy life. I haven't found the visa application yet, and probably
they wouldn't let me in. I would be a really bad cultural fit there. I want
that life, but I just don't fit in - that's the truth.
So, really, on a
simple level - stating that Brexit would happen or that Trump would win, was
quite "easy". All you had to do was look at the polls. It was quite
close there (a few percentage points). Given taboo on the one side, just bump
that side up a bit compensating for the taboo answer, and that side will win.
So come yesterday
morning, Trump being President, I was not surprised at all. In fact, some of my
friends wrote me straight away - "Wow, exactly like you said". Smug
satisfaction was in fact followed immediately by a really shitty feeling. I wish
I had been wrong. Trump as President really sucks. Brexit really sucks too. For
the record, I was quite happy Leicester City won the Premier League.
Starting to read some
media, opening Facebook and reading comments, however, I was shocked. People
genuinely lived on a different planet than me. Most of my friends were both
sad, and very surprised. I found this a bit strange, but I guess the combination
of the media telling us the truth we want to hear (about the polls, possibly
unwillingly) combined with our own world view (No Trump! Go Clinton) will make
all of us believe the world we want to believe in. That goes for liberals,
Breitbart reading conspiracy theorists, Daily Mail readers, Berlusconi voters,
Football fans or anyone else. If we are told the world we like is also what is
happening, we tend to believe it. So people then being surprised is not just a
question of "getting the odds wrong", but also of what those odds
meant to us emotionally. I realized today that all this triggered a lot of
emotions in me - and this is a response on that.
When people are asking
"why" Donald Trump won the election, I think the answer is right in
front of our eyes. Yet, we are looking somewhere else, in some strange corner.
Also, as the answer to this is obviously complex, we are emphasizing all the
additional reasons, which - while being completely true - obscure the elephant
in the room. I will get to the elephant, but let's look at some of the other
reasons.
Discrimination against
women?
I think that if you
broke down the two candidates and controlling for all other elements than
gender, (if that was possible), you would find that Hilary Clinton would
probably win if she "was a man", and Trump would lose if he "was
a woman" (The last mental exercise is particularly difficult, I find,
which in itself says a lot about gender roles and how we - in this case me -
project them). I have been lucky enough to grow up in one of the most gender
equal societies in the world. My mother was working when we were small, Norway
has significant parental leave for both parents, kindergarten is heavily
subsidized and there are many other structural and cultural elements in place
to encourage more equal participation in the workforce, as well as in other
areas of life (ie. childcare). Despite all that, statistics are quite clear,
even in Norway, that there are loads of differences. Over time, I have come to
experience, mainly through the indirect experience of knowing so many talented
women, that this discrimination is deep - very deep. In fact, most of it is
hidden not only from view, but from consciousness, meaning it is actually not
"bad people behaving like assholes", but rather projections that we
don't even realise until we reall examine ourselves. Women, systematically,
face huge discrimination across a huge number of areas, the most apparent of
which is access to power in our societies (leadership roles, political roles,
equal pay for equal work, social rights, right to decide over own body etc.).
There is no doubt in my mind that Hilary faced discrimination throughout her
career for being a woman, that in this particular election many of those deep
rooted elements were present, and that all other things being equal she would
have won the election. OK, so what's your point? Well, I think if you broke
this discrimination down to "percentage" points, you would explain
perhaps 3-10%, depending a bit. That's significant - significant enough that
she would have won the election. But let's turn it around.
The real question
about "what happened", is not really about "How did Donald Trump
get more votes than Hilary Clinton?", although in our results-only-matter
culture (it is sickening) that is all we seem to care about. The real question
is why 60 million people voted for Donald Trump? 60 million! Take away 3% (1,8
million) or 10% (6 million), and the question still stands. Why did 54 million
people vote for Donald Trump? While gender discrimination definitely can explain
the result, it does not explain what is happening at heart. In fact,assuming Trump doesn't
by accident launch nukes against Iran because he isn't getting enough Twitter
replies in the middle of the night, it may actually help us in the long run
that he won (I don't believe that, but hang with me for a second). If Trump had
gotten 54 million votes, our media, ourselves would have just "proceeded
as normal". No problem, right? It's just 54 million people. A couple of
rednecks in one town and a couple of idiots in another village. Doesn't matter.
The march to progress continues!
Racism and fear of
immigration?
Yes. Simple answer to
a complex question. The United States (and all other countries that I have been
to, actually) has a huge amount of racism. Most of it is deep (as above). In
addition to that this is mixed in with fear of immigration, which is partially
racism, but also related to fear of the "other" more generally. The
political analysis usually just lumps these elements into one big pot.
"The minority vote" etc. etc. Well, more than 30% of Latinos in the
swing state of Florida voting for Trump shows that things are not at all this
simple. When it comes to immigration, my particular issue is the with absolute
hypocrisy of Europeans. In fact, the "emigrate to Europe" (although
probably Canada is mentioned even more frequently) is particularly ironic.
European immigration policy is in fact so hostile, that most Americans would be
denied migration to Europe, and if they were allowed they would quickly find
that if the reason they did so was because of racism/fear og immigration in the
US, they would quickly want to migrate back to America.
But what am I really
getting at?
What has happened with
Trump getting elected, or Brexit, or a number of other democratic developments
in Western Societies in the las few years is not really that difficult to
explain. On a very simple level, many people, in fact most people, feel that society
is not working for them - it is working against them. Now, what makes this
particularly complex is that while a majority feels that way, that is also the
only thing that unites this majority. Some, illustrated by the
#blacklivesmatter campaign, will break this down to fundamental structural
inequalities based upon race and systematic discrimination. #himforher will
highlight that woman are getting the short end of the stick - across the world.
Others will point at trade deals and speak about communities being
systematically torn apart, as stable jobs and families give way for Oxycodone
abuse, domestic violence, alcoholism and decay. Others will talk about
immigration, and the undercutting of jobs through foreigners - ie. the Polish
plumber in the UK (btw - in Norway, we are very happy with our Polish plumbers
usually). Others again, will speak about different values brought by people of
other religions, of headscarves and Burkinis, the difficulty of integration and
of urban ghettos in the outskirts of European cities. Others, again, will speak
about corrupt politicians, or at best - politicians out of touch with the
people. Uniting most people, big corporations and banks are to blame for
everything, as surely those bonuses and trading schemes are incompatible with
our current lives. And as quickly as we find the problems we have the ready
made solutions.
More distribution to
the poor! Build a wall to Mexico! Scrap those trade deals! Break up the banks!
Drain the DC political swamp! Curb migration! Bomb Putin out of the Kremlin!
(ok, I added that one, but it fits the picture). We are the 99%, so the saying
goes.
But the awful truth
is, there is no "we". We project our own insular communities,
constructed on Facebook, in our limited social circles, in our small town or at
our workplace and we project it upon a vast "other", where "I am
like most people". That's why we (meaning liberal elites) are so shocked
by Brexit and Trump. Nobody around me would vote for that. And actually, we
don't even identify ourselves as elites. Most Millennials, and in fact most
people I know will categorize themselves as victims of society along one or
several fault lines - be it age, gender, sexual orientation, income bracket,
property ownership, wealth, job security, ethnicity and many others. In fact,
the only thing that unites us is our belief that others are better off, they
are arrogant and don't understand our plight, and finally we will get our
comeuppance.
My experience,
post-Brexit, post-Trump, is that we seek to explain the world's events through
the actions of others. Those other people that ruined things for us [me]
unfairly. Rarely do we turn the mirror around on ourselves. Is it actually so
that there is something I do not understand? Could it be that my behavior as a
citizen is breaking my community apart? Is it possible that I am genuinely wrong
about the people voting for Trump - that they are different than I think?
At the ultimate level
of rethink. If the system isn't working for so many people. As in,
fundamentally not working. May it be that actually they (others) are right? May
it be that what is needed is not more fighting for what I believe in? May it be
that we are not looking at a tweak and a turn? May it be not that the system is
basically OK, and we just need to change some things? May it be that we have
gone so far down the rabbit hole that we don't even know which way we came
from?
The only thing we can
honestly do something about is ourselves. But changing ourselves, being
disciplined and open about that, is genuinely the hardest thing to do in the
world. It requires a lifetime of commitment just to challenge yourself a few
centimeters. So what can we do? I think that a fundamental solution is not to
point at the system not working, but at ourselves and how I am a part of the
system. How can I be more loving and caring? How can I listen more? How can my
primary motivation for action be the well being of others? How can I choose to
give up money and fame? How can I invest into my community?
These are only
questions. No answers. But it is somewhere along this line that my frustration
with election of Trump reached a boiling point. Because the opposite was / is
happening. My liberal friends are angry and showing hatred towards Trump and
those who voted for him. While that is fully understandable - it is the very
behavior that has led to this dystopian society where he is elected. We must
stop.
Post-hoc ad-hoc the
"popular vote argument" pops up. The US is a federal system, which is
why there is no overall popular vote winner takes all. While that might make
more sense to many, I think people who make this claim are not aware neither of
the presuppositions nor of the consequences of their hypothetical thoughts.
First of all, if that was the system the election itself, including voter
turnout, distribution of votes would be different. Perhaps even the actual
candidates would be different. That is such a big variable shift, and not an
independent one from the outcome, meaning that to insert it afterwards makes no
sense. It is just an excuse to make you feel better. Secondly, if that was the
case, that in practice means that the US would not be a federal republic. The
US has always been a very diverse country, along many fault lines. One of them
has already resulted in a civil war in the nation's history. If you over-night
changed the way the President was elected, I genuinely think the result would
be secession or civil war. I mean, perhaps that would be better for everyone?
Why do you think that Europe is full of small little nations that can't agree
on almost anything? Because we all want our own President. And even within our
small nations we don't get along. But to just bring the "popular
vote" argument to the table afterwards is really an off the chart bad
argument. And wasn't that the whole argument a week ago? "Trump may not
accept the result of the vote". Careful where you are going with this...
What about Trump's
policy?
In my assessment (and
let me be clear, I think some of this is really really complicated so I am not
sure at all), much of Trump's policy seems quite inaccurate (as in, I think
they deal with the symptoms of problems, not with causes). However, the whole
"this is stupid" argument, I don't buy
Let's start with
immigration.
There are basically
three main policies that Trump has put forward on this field, all of which are
met with absolute outcry. 1. Deport undocumented migrants 2. Build a wall to
Mexico 3. Prevent Muslims from coming to the US. As policies they are inhuman, opposites to the ideas of freedom and opportunity, and despicable. However, to hear
Europeans shocked by this is about as
credible as neighbors of Auschwitz claiming they did not know what was
happening next door.
In Norway (my own
liberal, very open society), the estimates are that there are approximately
20,000 undocumented migrants. All political parties in parliament, bar none,
completely agree that irregular (they call them illegal) migrants cannot live
in the country. In fact, that makes sense. The whole idea of nationality and
different rights for "us" and "them" based on that, is
based upon the idea that "my country for me and my people". The
Norwegian police is working every day, tirelessly to deport as many of these
people as they can. In fact, that is their role. And while nobody "likes
to see it", it is commonly accepted as something that needs to be done.
Now, to put this into context, that means that in Norway (with 5 million
people), around 1 in 250 people you may see on the street is an undocumented
migrant. In the US, according to estimates, the number is approximately 15
million. That means that 1 in 20 people are. And the US, being actual much more
liberal than ALL European countries when it comes to migration (now, before and
probably in the future as well), this is an issue to many people. Call it
racism, because yes - it is. But don't give me this hypocrisy that this is some
sort of crazy Trump policy.
The wall to Mexico is
particularly interesting. First of all, as a policy idea, it is probably quite
bad (although, I am not expert). The cost of such a wall, compared to its
impact, probably doesn't make much sense. However, there is nothing in that policy
idea that is actually "wrong" compared to current laws and intentions
of US policy (under the much beloved liberal leader of the free world Barrack
Obama). US already implements very stringent border control, which anyone who
has waited for hours on the Mexico-US border knows. The wall may not be smart
policy, but it is tangible. And in fact, it is neither new, nor something we
don't know about. Europe (that haven of liberal policies), has walls all around
its Schengen borders. Australia, while adrift in South Pacific, pushes boats
back with people trying to break that wall - to Nauru and other places. I mean,
come on. On these policies Trump isn't even controversial.
Banning Muslims
entering the US? I guess there is a pattern here. In fact, Western countries
(other than the US and to some extent Canada), have already put in place
immigration policies that, while not explicitly targeting Muslims, in practice
make immigration of Muslims less likely than migration of all other people. The
exception being refugee policy (as currently a lot refugees, at least on
Europe's borders, come from predominantly Muslim societies), and we can all
see where this wind is blowing.
My point is not that I
agree with Trump's policy on any of these. In fact, if you were to discuss
migration with me, you would probably find me so liberal that you would find it
difficult to place me in any current political context. I am just saying that
outrage on these policies is in fact most hypocritical. We are projecting some
idea on Trump and drawing conclusions. At no point are we looking towards
ourselves, and our role in this.
What about cancelling
trade deals, NAFTA, TPP or whicherver, rebuilding trade barriers and walls? I think most
people at some point have read something about Ricardo and competitive
advantage, and overall, world GDP growth does point at some benefits of global
trade. There are so many levels of complication here, though, which we just
don't seem to be willing to engage in. The first, which is quite commonly
discussed, relates to re-distribution. On one hand, that's obvious. Currently
the real benefactors of trade surpluses in developed countries are a very small
top percentage. This is related to systematic differences of capital and
resource distribution, and ultimately most analysis, which I tend to agree
with, end up at some need of redistribution, re-training, free education, tax
reform, ownership reform etc. While I agree with these, to me they are all
inside the box thinking - not outside the box.
Above I was speaking
about the system fundamentally not working. Redistribution might sound like a
fundamental shift to some, but I would claim it is not. The reason that people
are so unhappy is not just a balance account and real time income - although
for sure real-wage decline and erosion of the middle class definitely hasn't
helped. At a real fundamental level there are expectations on increased wealth
amongst a part of the world (essentially me, and you who is reading this), that
is both unsustainable and selfish. We believe we deserve more. How much more?
Not sure. But a bit more. That house. Or that car. Or that vacation. In fact,
our relationship to wealth and money is fundamentally perverted. And it means
that the relative impact of wage stagnation is much more severe on life quality
than actual poverty (when we get above the bread line). That is unbelievable,
but seems to hold true in many studies. That mens that we have created a system
where our relationship to money and wealth is determining the worth we ascribe
to relationships, to our government, to our local community. Often removed one
or two levels, but still clear. Full re-distribution would be a pain-killer
that for sure would lead to regular parties staying in charge
The Trump vote down by
another 6-7 million, and he would be a joke) - only 30%? My god - what a
walkover, you know. That would mean ONLY 45 million voted for him. That's
almost nobody. Except, you realize quickly, 45 million is a lot of people. A
lot of people. At the same time, this system is destroying nature around us,
putting an enormous spiritual stress on humans, basically out of touch with our
natural habitat.
We look for solutions,
such as re-distribution etc. - but they are dealing with symptoms - again. And
again it's external. It's the fault of the banks, or the politicians, or the
big companies or whoever. But it's not me, you know. Because I am a victim. And
for sure I am not part of the 1%, so then I am part of the 99%. As if we are a
coherent one.
The hypocrisy of all
this anti-protectionism is also interesting - again. My own country, and all
that I know, consciously and specifically has trade and competition barriers in
place to protect specific industries and specific people. In fact, outsourcing
is find as long as it is removed from things I see. And there-in lies the crux.
How many people are spending Tuesday afternoons in a ruined neighborhoods on
the outskirts of Cleveland? How many people there do we know? In your country -
what is your Cleveland called?
The real realization
here is that the only people who believe the system is working is the people
for whom the system is working. If you are my Facebook friend, which is
probably how you found this, I can all but guarantee that you (and I) are part
of the global elites. While that line may not go at 1%, overall speaking, just
as little as white, male, incredibly lucky me can never understand the true
discrimination and challenges of a black single mother, everyone reading this
really is living a privileged life. Yet we put that down to our own hard work.
It is what we deserve - nothing less. And probably we deserve a bit more - not
less for sure. And the projection continues. Because the 50k $ + American who
overwhelmingly voted for Trump will ascribe his wealth to hard work. And
taxation and re-distribution will then by definition go to those who have
worked a little bit less hard, right? So how is that right? Why should I suffer
that others aren't pulling their weight? Surely - the banks should pay!
Ah yes, the banks. I
remember very well in an AIESEC congress in Russia in 2012 (some of you may
have been there), a representative of UBS was speaking about the wonderful role
of banks in bringing credit and capital to the world and bringing millions out
of poverty. In his world view, he was helping the world! And he believed it. He
is wrong, right? Because we know, of course, how the world works.
Again the mirror
turns. My large amount of frustration in these last few days come at the fact
that we do not see that we have created this world. That I (not others) had to
change if I want the world to change. The Michael Moore rhetoric of "now
we fight" is exactly not what the world needs. Not because we shouldn't
fight racism, bigots and (in general) Donald Trump, but because it puts the
focus on others - again.
So what do I think of
this Trump presidency? Well, hard to know. Honestly, I think Trump policy is
not going to be significantly different in terms of impact of much other
policy. To that, American checks and balances are too strong. I think there are
some impacts of his presidency that are awful though, and the question is what
to do about that.
The first is the
rhetoric. The way he was spoken about human beings, be they immigrants,
homosexuals, women, minorities, disabled, is very dangerous. Because it makes
it normal. Studies of concentration camp officers in the second world war
highlight how they truly did not see the captives as humans. And this view of
people can shift dramatically quite quickly. And it already is. I heard the
Norwegian Foreigner Police (not Trump!) speak about how they deport people the
other day (remember, above). I was disgusted. Not at all by the deportation
methods, given the inhumanity of the policy, the methods were quite humane. No,
I was disgusted because she continuously referred to the people the met (in real
examples) as "the foreigner". And nobody reacted. This rhetoric is
dangerous in any context, but once it is given a microphone on the world stage
(first for a campaign, and now for at least 4 years - my guess is 8), its
impact can be unbelievably bad. I think this is where Barrack Obama excelled.
On many things I thought he was not a great President. But he spoke about
humans as humans. Always.
But if we are to fight
the rhetoric in 4 or 8 years, we need to do just that. Michele Obama said that
"when they go low, we go high". But in fact, Clinton didn't do that
when she spoke of the "basket cases" that would vote for Trump. Going
high means listening to people you disagree with. Showing love to those you
think are wrong. And challenging your own perspective and opinions. And I see
little willingness to do that. The rhetoric seems to be "an eye for an
eye". The anti-foreigner, anti-woman speak on Melania Trump (who,
honestly, to my knowledge, hasn't even spoken badly about anyone in this whole
drama) is a point to show.
The second is the lack
of a woman at top. I do think having a woman President and role model is a
missed opportunity for America. It may not come around again so soon.
On the positive side,
perhaps the sheer anger of the American heartlands can be channeled into
dialogue with Trump at the top. Not by Trump, I believe, but perhaps by
moderates in Congress, by NGOs, and through other channels. As anyone who has
been angry knows, in the moment the blood is boiling it is hard to have
dialogue with anyone. Perhaps some emotions have calmed a bit. The question
there is whether "the other side" is able to have dialogue now?
What has happened?
Donald Trump got elected democratically. Of all the ways and in all the
circumstances to have such a leader, perhaps this is the best one. The
alternative, through a coup d'etat, civil war could be even worse.
Why has it happened?
At least now we cannot hide anymore. The problems of our society is in our
face. Perhaps we can awaken and realize that all is not ok. Perhaps we can stop
fiddling at the edges and talk about fundamental issues of the way we have constructed
our world. From the rampant capitalism, to the eco- unfriendly growth policy, to
the lack of spirituality, to the break-up of family and love, to the
selfishness of Me, to the suspicion of all others, to the ownership of
production, to the belief that technology can solve all ills. Something is
fundamentally not working.
The problem is not
Trump. The problem is me. And I need to change. My very need to write this
rant, in fact, demonstrates my lack of emotional control, my lack of ability to
listen, my shortcomings in the face of this break down of society.
So the mirror is on
the wall.
