On hypocrisy and projection

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?"

1. Could the UK really choose to leave the European Union? (Brexit)
2. Could Trump really become the next US President?
3. 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.