Our Government

[PennySludt]

I admit, when I woke up this morning and looked at the results, I was fairly sure I was having a nightmare. I cried. I double checked. I cried again. In fact, I have spent most of the morning crying and wondering how the hell this could have happened.

But at some point, one of the smartest person I know, my friend Tori, reminded me that the constitution is in place for a reason. The 'checks and balances' this country's government is based on is there for a reason. One man cannot rule with an iron fist. He can make waves, big ones, I'm sure. But there are rules and laws in place to limit a single man's power. She reminded me that sometimes people need to make their mistakes and learn from them. This may be a bad thing (terrible, in my opinion), but it can also show us what needs to be fixed. She reminded me that the rest of the world was just as shocked as I was (and most of my friends), and perhaps this will be a catalyst towards a world where countries will come together to support each other. While that may or may not mean World War III, it will hopefully mean that people will be able to look beyond borders and see that deep down, they have the same views as other countries.

America is young. A teenager compared to other countries in the world. Teenagers make mistakes on their journey toward understanding themselves and the world. Perhaps this is a teenage moment. A step toward understanding ourselves and the world? Perhaps the older, more experienced countries will provide the support and guidance that this teenager needs in it's time of exploration. Perhaps, they will come together in a parental way, forgive us our misguided attempts at adulthood, and meet us on the other side with not too big of an 'I told you so'.

I'm sure there will still be points today where I read something and burst into tears, but what she said went a long way to making me a little less panicked. What the future holds is impossible to tell, and at this point all we can do is buckle up and see where this ride takes us. In the meantime, vote for the small elections. The people we vote in lower down are the ones who move up and make the bigger decisions, like the people voted into the electoral college, who are the true voters in these big elections. Most people don't show up for the 'unimportant' elections. But those are the ones that are more important than you can imagine. Those are the groundwork that everything else is built on. When we don't put our voice in at the beginning, it's a lot harder to be heard later on.

So don't wait another 4 years to try again. Start now. Start with the school board, the mayor, the treasurer, the District Attorney. Start building the world you want at the base. It's a lot easier to add windows to a building when you're drawing the plans than it is to add them when you've got the walls up already.

[Eikichi]

I think the most striking thing for this election, historically. Is that America isn't the first to make this decision. We might have been the teenager making a mistake, but we've watched out parents (Brexit), make the same judgement. The real question that's going to be asked in history, and in the future, is what does 2016 represent? is it the peoples backlash against a government they no longer feels represents them, or is a culmination of the media and direction the world has been going. It isn't our nation that's been divided this year, many nations are being divided by their own versions of conservative and liberal parties.

It's not about worrying about one nation, but the mood of every nation. We've seen this shift in 2016, and it'll only become more apparent now that it's taking hold. The really decisive part of this isn't just about the division of parties, but generations. In both Brexit and the US election elder voters favored something that younger voters were against (this may not be entirely true for the US, more election results need to come in). Which is understandable, the world is on the tipping point of policies that some might think are long overdue, while some might see it as the butchering of religious principles that we are meant to stand up and defend.

Whatever happens, it isn't the end of the world. But it is time for everyone to open up their eyes and realize that ideas that the we were raised to accept and understand, are ideals that we need to fight for until they do become the norm.

[HannibalBarca]

I discovered this detail, and an important one it is, to remember about this election.  Trump got fewer votes than both John McCain or Mitt Romney.  He was eminently beatable.  He won, just like Brexit, because the other side stayed home.  Liberals dropped the ball on this one, many of them choosing not to vote because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton due to her corporatist, establishment credentials.  Bernie Sanders had the only positive favorability among all the candidates on both sides.  He actually appealed to white males in many conservative states because of his honesty and his willingness to listen to all sides and look to help people who were underemployed and unemployed in those areas.

[ReijiTabibito]

Hannibal is right.  Nearly any other Democrat in the race could have beaten Donald Trump.  I would have preferred Bernie, or even Larry Lessig (who literally ran on ONE ISSUE - money in politics), but I would have taken Lincoln Chafee, or as he's known, "Who?"

Trump and Bernie both did something exactly the same this election - they went out and told working-class Americans, the ex-middle class, and people struggling to get by that their struggles mattered to them.  They talked at the American people, not down to them.  They eschewed the slick, polished tones of professional politicians for "tell it like it is" brute force-style speeches.

Because average, working-class Americans are tired of 'I'm okay, you're okay, we're okay.'  Trump himself put it...perhaps not the best, but the bluntest: "Things are bad."  And they are bad, but the government is seemingly paralyzed, gridlocked by endless political maneuvering, unwilling to do anything about it because it might mean they lose their job.  And have you seen how hard it is to get a job out there?  Oh, SO HARD.

Trump attacked Hillary majorly over her corporatist sentiments and her pattern of pay-to-play corruption, which not only could not have happened with Sanders, Sanders would have turned the narrative back on Trump.

But no.  The DNC decided that if the Bushes got a second go around at the White House, the Clintons would need one, too.  The DNC decided that it was more important to reward the person who had spent 25 years 'working for the company' with the big promotion than the guy who had the most merit.  And more importantly, when it turned out a lot of people wanted to listen to Merit-Man's message, they panicked and shut him down, because the promotion was going to the company loyalist, and there would be heads rolling if it wasn't.

The DNC and the RNC both had a box labeled 'Approved Candidates.'  One party broke it, the other didn't.  And I hope to Heaven that the box that remains unbroken gets broken next time around, with maximum prejudice.

[PennySludt]

I totally and completely agree about Bernie. He was a far better candidate than anyone else, by miles, and I was for him until the bitter end. If the party had chosen him, I'm pretty sure he would have won. He was real!

[marauder13]

I discovered this detail, and an important one it is, to remember about this election.  Trump got fewer votes than both John McCain or Mitt Romney.  He was eminently beatable.  He won, just like Brexit, because the other side stayed home.  Liberals dropped the ball on this one, many of them choosing not to vote because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton due to her corporatist, establishment credentials.  Bernie Sanders had the only positive favorability among all the candidates on both sides.  He actually appealed to white males in many conservative states because of his honesty and his willingness to listen to all sides and look to help people who were underemployed and unemployed in those areas.

Man, this is one fine example of why I love that Australia has mandatory voting, votes on a Saturday, has three major political parties, and a just enough politically unaffiliated independents in our Federal Senate so no one side can have a clear run and say 'to hell with what the people want.'. That, and also not having fixed terms. So, if we do get a dickhead in charge, as we have more than once, the means to get rid of them is there before they do too much harm.

[PennySludt]

We actually may seriously be moving to Australia! Continent on a few things, of course. But it sure sounds good!

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I think the problem Hillary ran into was that everyone thought she had this election, even the Trump camp seemed to think so.  Since so many people disliked her there was no real motivation to show up at the polls.  Media outlets were reporting "record breaking" poll numbers when in fact the latest numbers I've seen say 46% of the country didn't even vote.  So while few people wanted Trump to win, those that did were energized enough to hit the polls.  Those that didn't want him to win figured, there's no way he could and weren't motivated to go out and vote for Hillary. 

[Tamhansen]

I think the problem Hillary ran into was that everyone thought she had this election, even the Trump camp seemed to think so.  Since so many people disliked her there was no real motivation to show up at the polls.  Media outlets were reporting "record breaking" poll numbers when in fact the latest numbers I've seen say 46% of the country didn't even vote.  So while few people wanted Trump to win, those that did were energized enough to hit the polls.  Those that didn't want him to win figured, there's no way he could and weren't motivated to go out and vote for Hillary. 

The same happened this side of the channel with the Brexit vote, though in somewhat lesser numbers. People didn't believe folks would be that stupid, turned out they were.

[Gypsy]

Maybe that's part of the problem.  People start to resent it when every action that they take that doesn't agree with someone else's, it's because they're 'stupid'.

People have reasons for doing what they do, and even if they don't agree with your reason or my reason, it is not necessarily out of stupidity.

That's part of the whole compromise thing.  As long as everyone who disagrees with you is 'stupid', then it's pretty hard to expect them to compromise with you, or even listen to you, because you're not willing to listen to them.

It reminds me of a political site I once posted on -- one of the loudest, most prolific posters told me several times how 'stupid' I was when my opinion didn't match his.  When I agreed with him, I was 'smart' and 'insightful'.  Funny, I doubt that my degree of intelligence is on that sort of sliding scale, and he wasn't even paying enough attention to notice that I was the exact same person.  Posting there was a waste of my time, because nobody was listening or talking, they were just trying to 'outshout' everybody else.

We might get more compromise in politics when we're ready to realize that both sides have valid concerns that need to be addressed, rather than just summarily dismissed as some sort of generic 'cost of doing business'.

[Beguile's Mistress]

It might also help if elections were more than popularity contests. 

Start thinking about whether or not the person can do the job rather than whether or not you want them living next door.

I may not want someone in my neighborhood but if they have the intelligence, qualifications and experience they are a better bet.

[PennySludt]

It would help too, if people didn't hear 'socialist' and assume it's a terrible thing. They'd rather have socialites instead of socialists. In my opinion, one is far more dangerous than the other! When socialites hold control, we're on the road to revolutionary France! ;)

[Gypsy]

It might also help if elections were more than popularity contests. 

Maybe when we're ready to stop making it a news story every time a celebrity breaks wind ... out of either end.  >:)

[CuriousEyes]

The figures about Trump votes vs Romney/McCain are flawed because not all votes have been tallied yet. I believe at one point I heard it that millions are still outstanding. They arent expected to change outcomes, but the total number is still moving.

Can I say, respectfully, that I'm tired of Sanders Revisionists holding out this "Bernie would have won" position like it's gospel? Maybe it's true, but at best it's debatable and at worst casts an unflattering/unfair insinuation on Sanders supporters.

You want to point to opinion polls from six months ago that Sanders would beat Trump? The same polls said Clinton would beat Trump. Election day there wasn't a credible organization that saw her losing. Either person as candidate would have gone through a brutal campaign where everything was torn apart, and those 10 or 20 point margins wouldn't have held up.

If Sanders had been the candidate he still might have struggled to build the necessary coalition. Even if he gets a bigger share of rural/blue collar whites, he probably loses blacks Latinos and women in some share because those demographics favored Clinton in the primary. We can never know for sure.

And if we do decide to accept the central conceit - that Sanders 100% defeats Trump? That suggests two arguments to me - some sizable segment of Sanders supporters lived up to the most derogatory stereotypes of "Bernie Bros" and either voted for a candidate anathema to their hero's beliefs out of spite, or refused to engage in the political process out of contempt. Neither is a good look - although I don't actually believe either is completely true.

We might be deconstructing everything that went wrong on polling, punditry and campaign management for decades. My earliest guess would be that polling didn't account strongly enough for rural America turning out harder and more solidly for Trump than any other candidate. We will never, ever know if Bernie Sanders could have changed that or would have gotten bogged down in a swamp he couldn't get out of, struggling to patch together the same coalition Clinton couldn't get over. Even if you believe it, don't close yourself off to other possibilities.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Maybe when we're ready to stop making it a news story every time a celebrity breaks wind ... out of either end.  >:)

People have to stop watching those shows and reading those articles.  When advertisers aren't making money from the audience, because there is not audience, those shows and articles will go away.  Their philosophy is that if people are watching they are buying.

Politicians spend too much time trying to appeal to people on a visceral level and not enough doing their job. 

[CriminalMindsFan]

I'm the sort of American who has tossed around idea that we should just elect two sides of Government, one for Republicans and one for Democrats. Then you just follow the side you want to govern and police you. Then if you've grown unhappy with the side you picked, switch to the other side. This should end some of the major conflicts between the sides.

[PennySludt]

Actually, that's exactly what has happened forever. Look at the last few! And this time, no one was happy with the two choices, but most weren't even aware there were other options, so didn't even show up to vote. If there was as much prime time coverage for the other parties and candidates, there may have been a better voter turnout. Whether or not that would have affected the current numbers is impossible to know, but I really do think there need to be more options, instead of constantly swinging from one extreme to the other and fighting over the results every time. With only two parties, half the population is going to be upset at any given time, causing a lot more turmoil than if the votes had been split between more candidates and there wasn't one side ganging up on the other.

[CriminalMindsFan]

Actually, I meant two separate Presidents, Senates and basically two of each in every political office so you can just pick a side physically to govern for you.

[Zakharra]

Actually, I meant two separate Presidents, Senates and basically two of each in every political office so you can just pick a side physically to govern for you.

There's no way that would work. Two federal governments in the same country? They'd be running into each other constantly when the laws and such one passed affected the others ideas and laws.

[CuriousEyes]

There's no way that would work. Two federal governments in the same country? They'd be running into each other constantly when the laws and such one passed affected the others ideas and laws.

I don't know if it's a serious proposal, but more earnestly I do think this country is perhaps best served splitting up into 2 - 3 independant nations. Sometimes it just seems like the cultural divides are too great.

[PennySludt]

That!

[HannibalBarca]

Splitting into multiple nations doesn't work so well for the millions who are living right where they want to.  India and Pakistan split, tens of millions were forced to move, and they've still had three wars where they almost went nuclear on each other.  Actually compromising on subjects is a better system.  After all, it's an integral part of the Constitution.  The problem is, there is a side who generally won't compromise, and tend towards that because their religious beliefs. 

[Beguile's Mistress]

There's no way that would work. Two federal governments in the same country? They'd be running into each other constantly when the laws and such one passed affected the others ideas and laws.

*nods*  Hello, Civil War!

[Oniya]

One major difficulty with it is the distribution of resources.  For example, with the exception of Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii, all states have an interconnected power grid.  Some states are dependent on water coming in from other states (particularly around the Grand Canyon region).  If you're in New England, a lot of your produce is trucked in (this makes things pricey in MA, since there are no truck stops in the state).  Many things have to be flown in to Alaska and Hawaii.  Industry is also concentrated by region, which would affect other material goods

Then, you have population mobility - might not get as bad as it did in the 1800's (the last time someone tried this idea), but there will be people in each region that might want or need to get out and will be stuck there because of economic or physical limitations.  Or people with families in 'the other country' that will have to weigh seeing each other against all the complications of international travel, and 'international law'.  Would a couple legally married in the DSA run afoul of restrictive laws if they travel to the RSA (q.v. Loving v. Virginia)?

Another thing to consider is that things are changing.  Maybe an inch at a time, and the next four years may even see some backsliding if we aren't vigilant, but it's still a thing.  Little Oni's generation is more accepting than mine.  My generation is more accepting than my parents'.  If we created the DSA and the RSA, what happens when our kids grow up and a portion of the RSA wants to be part of the DSA?  (I'm hopeful that movement will tend in that direction, and we don't end up with Teapartistan splitting off from the RSA instead.)

[Missy]

United we stand or divided we fall? I guess things are the way they are because we are so divided?

Doubtless there are extremists in our society, but I think it's important we remember there are plenty more who fall much closer to the moderate end of the spectrum. In both Conservative and Liberal camps this is true, we just have no mechanism to bring people together to cooperate and make a compromise.

One thing I think is important we acknowledge is there are leftists just as there are rightists. I think it's a fact that we overlook sometimes, but there are people my liberal friends are comfortable associating with that are similar to people like Trump in ways. In example these people espouse liberal views and attitudes in ways I don't think many people here would identify with, the way the majority of conservatives wouldn't ever identify with Nazis, KKK's or evangelicals.

I think one thing we need to realize and do is acknowledge the good in others even if they fail to do so for us, it is critical that we lead by example and not exacerbate the American state of affairs. I presented the concept of *Trans to a friend once and he noted to me his opposition, why: Because the only thing he knew about it came from an article titled "Miralce! Man Gives Birth". I think it's important to remember that not all peoples opinions are founded in malice, but ignorance, not in conceit, but ill-information, not in obstinance, but independent thought.

I think it's important when we interact with other people that we do so with patience, humility and understanding. Recognizing that in truth most people are basically good and that not everyone's opinions are based on the words of Intolerant Pastor Ian. I'll tell you what I was raised by Mormons for 22 years so growing up the concept of Trans wasn't something that was even allowed in my life (there were signs, but everything around me forced to suppress them). When I first learned about the concept of Trans from my English professor I was pretty skeptical about it, I was far enough out of Mormonism by that point to have an open mind enough to live and let live in a way I wouldn't have when I was younger. A few months later I would join E and meet actual transpeople for the first time (even some of the first people I requested RPs with were teals) and hear the other side of the debate on my early skepticisms, it ultimately served to change my mind completely, even before I took the idea so seriously for myself.

To be honest I think there would be many people who would be open and change their minds if they were approached by it respectfully. No doubt they still say things such as "that's not a man, that a woman whose been surgically altered . . ." or talking about those they've met don't pass very well, but because they're poorly informed, not because they're obstinate. My oldest friend is most assuredly not an evangelical, simply a free thinking atheist with no real experience in certain things.

The simple fact I think is that we can bring liberals and conservatives together to compromise and build a better world for all of us in our shared ethics "that all persons are created equal with certain inalienable rights", but it is up to us to do so by leading by example and not dismissing every conservative or republican as an ideological extremist. Instead we must begin by recognizing the good and purity of intention in people, in many cases it is truly so. It is not an easy task to set before ourselves as there are no doubt people who would attempt to exploit this in us and there will no doubt be times when we must use our best judgement in determining who we can and cannot trust, but if we don't offer the opportunity with humility and patience and understanding, then who will?

[Beguile's Mistress]

We are a divided society right now and more than likely always will be and thing are looking grim.  We'll probably see a backlash against a lot of what is happening and for that to be effective and succeed things will probably have to get worse than they are right now.  The more dire the circumstances the stronger the push back is going to be.