A Book Review of "Hillbilly Elegy", by J.D. Vance

Book Summary

Hillbilly Elegy is the first-person account of a multi-generational dysfunctional family.  The author was born August 2, 1984, in Middletown, Ohio, the grandson of economic migrants from eastern Kentucky.  The author connects his personal values and difficulties to his heritage from Appalachian people.  According to Vance, the attributes of Appalachian culture include fierce independence, patriotism, suspicion of outsiders, loyalty to family, and violence.  Religion is a value that is espoused, but less often observed.

The author was raised principally by his grandparents in Ohio, but maintained a connection to Kentucky through frequent family visits.  The grandparents had raised their children under conditions of alcoholism and domestic violence.  The author’s mother raised her family while engaging in drug addiction, revolving door relationships, home instability and domestic violence.  By the time the author was born, the author’s grandparents had cleaned up their behavior, and they provided a safe haven for Vance as a child.

Vance characterizes the Appalachian culture as suffering from poverty, unemployment, and hopelessness.  He implies that these problems underlie the personal issues of substance addiction, domestic violence and apathy.  Near the end of the book, Vance brings in a political dimension when he rejects most government policy solutions for the problems of this culture, reflecting his generally conservative world-view.  Vance also provides no solutions for the systematic problems of the Appalachian culture.

Viewpoint

Throughout the book, it was difficult for me to accept that the author is writing about recent times, and not the distant past.  It took me some time to realize that I was his parents’ age, and J.D. Vance is of my children’s generation.

I knew the children of the Appalachian economic migration when I was in elementary school in the 1960s.  The children were blond and spoke with southern accents.  We who were natives of Indiana told cruel jokes about the children from Kentucky; the children from Kentucky told jokes about the children from Tennessee.

Hillbilly Elegy generalizes the problems of the Appalachian culture to the white working class.   The white working class is of intense political interest, due to the shift of allegiance of this group from the Democratic Party to Donald Trump.  Joan C. Williams, writing in the Harvard Business Review, discusses that shift in an insightful article.  (https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class)

I think that Hillbilly Elegy is correct in characterizing the white working class as a pessimistic culture.  This explains many of the traits of middle America.  Drawing on the writings of physicist David Deutsch, pessimistic cultures expect change to bring something bad.  Outside influences and higher education are feared, because these can bring change.  Pessimistic cultures desire authoritative government and institutions, and revere the military and police.  Pessimistic cultures encourage conformity and discipline, particularly in education.  Pessimistic cultures are also religious; relying on divine protection from dangers in a world that they fear.

Reading Hillbilly Elegy, one is left with the impression that dysfunctional families, alcoholism, domestic violence, and xenophobia are characteristic of Appalachian culture.  I’m not sure that is correct, or fair.  Vance’s description of Appalachian families suggests that alcoholism is common.  But a map of national alcohol consumption shows the opposite – Appalachian states are reported to have among the lowest rates of alcohol consumption in the country.  (Unless this is an artifact of biased self-reporting, which Vance mentions in passing, regarding church attendance.)

Vance sometimes uses the term “elites”.  Certainly, Vance has left the socio-economic class of his birth, and achieved the highest levels of education, financial success, and status that is possible in American society.   J.D. Vance has become one of the elite members of our society.  Nevertheless, I dislike the term “elites”, for the same reasons that I dislike the term “radical Muslims”.  Both terms are broad and vague.  Both terms aggregate groups with widely differing values, goals, and reasons for association.  There are different kinds of elites, and there are elites that are in absolute opposition to each other.  There are business elites, political elites (on both sides), educational and intellectual elites, pop-culture elites, social elites, inherited wealth elites, scientific, sports and religious elites.  It just isn’t very meaningful to talk about “elites” as a group. 

Vance recognizes himself as changed; an optimist.  Nevertheless, Vance is not as changed as he thinks.  In his conservatism, Vance shows the pessimism of his origins.  I read passages such as this one: “We can’t trust the evening news.  We can’t trust our politicians.”   [Pg. 193.]  It isn’t clear whether Vance is speaking for himself, or for his constituency of the white working class.  Either way, it reflects a deep pessimism about our culture. 

Policy

Vance often makes reasonable observations and conclusions.  But he shows a worrisome tendency, typical of other conservatives, to reject academically based knowledge.  This quote is an example from an interview with NPR: “And the only way to do that I think is not by - you know, not just by reading studies and academic research on what's causing this problem, but to actually get out there and talk to people who've been affected by it.”

Vance is critical of existing welfare policies, such as food stamps.  But he offers no policy alternatives for vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly, the homeless, mentally ill or addicted.  In interviews and in the book, Vance suggests “listening”, and admits that solutions are “complicated”.   In my view, Vance should already have some suggestions about what policies will work, and evidence that those policies will work better than the policies he would replace.

Misinformation and Belief in Nonsense

Vance recognizes the problem of misinformation in society in a striking passage from page 190 to page 195.  He faults both the fake news media and the credulousness of conservatives in believing nonsense.  But he participates in exactly the behavior that he disparages, when he says, “I don’t doubt that the Obama economy has affected many….” [negatively].  Why would Vance say such a thing?  This is nonsense.  First, presidents have little control over the economy – there is no “Obama economy”.  And certainly, the Republican Congress shares equal blame or credit with the President on the state of the economy.  Third, during Obama’s tenure, the economy has undergone one of the best extended periods of job growth since World War II, ending in full employment.  The Dow Jones Average rose from 8077 to 18873, from President Obama’s inauguration, until before the election of Donald Trump.  That is approximately a 10 percent rate of return, compounded. 

Vance is also an apologist for Fox News, writing “even the oft-maligned Fox News has always told the truth about Obama’s citizenship status and religious views.”  NO.  The TRUTH is that questions about President Obama’s citizenship and religious views are NONSENSE.  Fox News gave legitimacy to these views through their coverage, treating the questions as worthy of consideration.  Fox News gave airtime to the proponents of these questions, and presented these critics as something other than idiots.  The standard operating procedure for Fox News is to delegitimize their political opponents with false innuendo and oblique slander.  That is why Fox News cannot be regarded seriously as “news” media, but rather a propaganda outlet.  And J.D. Vance is wrong to represent Fox News as a news organization.

Networking in the American Meritocracy

Near the end of the book, Vance writes about his transition from law student to law clerk.  Vance freely admits that he lacked the basic social skills to succeed in the professional world.  Vance and his professional future were saved by networking – the intervention of professors and friends with those who would determine his future.  Vance writes: “At Yale, networking power is like the air we breathe – so pervasive that it’s easy to miss.”

Vance writes extensively about how the white working class is cut off from upward mobility, and has lost faith in the American meritocracy.  Yet in the context of Vance’s conflicted belief in the American meritocracy, the kind of assistance he received at Yale seems like something else   When success systematically depends on who knows whom, and a promising future depends on personal intervention on behalf of favored individuals, it seems to me the system is not a meritocracy, but corruption.  Vance was given a chance despite his deficits, but also benefited from a system that has cut off individuals from schools other than Yale from the highest levels in American society and government.  And that isn’t right.

The Future of J.D. Vance

It is clear to me that J.D. Vance has political aspirations, and sponsors who are promoting his career.   Vance’s rapid advancement to a principal of Mithral Capital Management, headed by conservative billionaire Peter Thiel, convinces me that he has significant sponsorship in his ambitions.  Vance recently left California to return to his native state of Ohio, a reliably Republican state in recent years.  Vance plans a “listening tour” around the state of Ohio, including speaking to a number of Republican party county chapters, lectures at Ohio State campuses, and other appearances around the state.  Vance is being assisted by a long-term advisor to Governor John Kasich. 

It seems to me that the Republican Party develops candidates for national office, focusing on Ivy-League law-school graduates.  These candidates are groomed through developmental assignments in both state governments and private finance companies.  J.D. Vance’s book, which has given him a sympathetic public persona, is part of that process.  Ironically, this process promotes the “elites” that Vance identifies as part of the problem of American politics.  Nevertheless, the process is effective in electing Republicans.  By contrast, the Democratic Party does not appear to have any effective program to develop candidates for national office. 

I predict that Vance will run for Democrat Sherrod Brown’s Senate seat in 2020, and that he will win. I could easily believe that Vance has Presidential aspirations, as well. 

---

References:

Hillbilly Elegy, by author J.D. Vance, published June, 2016.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/25/506898862/-hillbilly-elegy-author-j-d-vance-plans-ohio-return-to-hear-state-s-challenges

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jd-vance-770a9047

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/21/daily-202-why-the-author-of-hillbilly-elegy-is-moving-home-to-ohio/5859da6ee9b69b36fcfeaf48/?utm_term=.11e18b49a277

Why did Hillary Clinton Lose?

This post is a “post-mortem” of the 2016 presidential election.  This was a winnable election for the Democratic party.  This post analyzes the reasons for that loss.

Short Version

Hillary Clinton was groomed for a presidential run since 2001.  The decision to develop her as a leading candidate inexplicably ignored her known unpopularity.  Since the earliest days of Bill Clinton’s administration, Hillary Clinton has been a lightning rod for conservative opposition.  For the past 25 years, few other people have motivated and energized conservative opposition as much as Hillary Clinton.   Beyond conservative opposition, many people across the political spectrum found Secretary Clinton unpleasant.  (I asked my wife for a single word which described Hillary Clinton, from the time before her candidacy.  This is the word she chose.  This is the same sentiment that I heard from many of my acquaintances, who nevertheless supported Clinton in the election.)

Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State must be judged as a complete failure on the basis of results.  There are civil wars in Ukraine, Syria and Libya, and unresolved conflict in other parts of the world, strained relations with other world powers, and disruption of the European Union.  The humanitarian disasters resulting from failure to curtail these conflicts threaten to overturn Western nations and progressive values.

In particular, Hillary Clinton demonstrated a blindness to real and apparent conflicts of interest.  In event after event, Secretary Clinton and her family enriched themselves far beyond any reasonable compensation.  The appearance of systematic corruption was a clear factor in her defeat.

Secretary Clinton lacks the personal charisma and speaking ability of other presidential-caliber candidates.  People in a number of different demographics groups found her personally unlikable. 

Despite these serious negatives, Hillary was the presumptive candidate from the earliest days of the campaign, with committed support from the great majority of party super-delegates.  Clinton’s ability to direct SuperPAC money to state party organizations raises more questions about corruption.

Secretary Clinton and President Obama pursued issues on the liberal agenda that alienated many conservative voters.  Leading Democrats should have recognized which battles are worth fighting, and which battles might lose the war.

Finally, there are external factors in the Democratic loss.  American political sentiments swing like a pendulum, and conservative sentiment was rising in 2016.  Also, right-wing propaganda has become a routine feature of our cultural landscape.  Misinformation and distortion are heard from major candidates, from leading news organizations, on social media, and from fake news sites.  The Democratic Party found no way to fight the onslaught of propaganda. 

In conclusion, the Democratic Party nominated a flawed candidate.  Secretary Clinton had a known and deserved reputation for apparent corruption, and became an easy target for the opposition.   Surely focus-group studies in critical states and in critical demographic groups would have shown her weaknesses.  The nomination of Secretary Clinton was an act of almost willful self-destruction by the Democratic Party.   It is difficult to understand why Clinton persisted in her campaign, and why she had the support of the Democratic Party leadership in seeking the presidency.  Secretary Clinton’s loss in the election will set back the party, the nation, and the causes which she worked to advance.

Long Version

Amid the cacophony of voices analyzing the recent election, perhaps there is room for one more.  I have thoughts that I have not seen elsewhere, so it might be worthwhile to write another article. 

Democrats have been asking the question “Why Did Hillary Lose?”  It’s a good question, and a question the Democratic party must answer if the party wants to win presidential elections.

This was a winnable election for the Democratic party.  Donald Trump was initially seen as a joke, as sideshow freak, a reality-show imbecile.  Trump was the butt of jokes among late-night comedians, politicians, and liberal communities on social media.  In pre-election polling, Trump had the highest unfavorability rating since such figures were first gathered in the 1950s or 1960s.  And yet he won. 

In an act of almost willful self-destruction, the Democratic Party ran the candidate who was most likely to lose.  Hillary Clinton had the second-highest unfavorability rating of any modern candidate.  The blame for nominating an unsuccessful candidate must be borne by the entire Democratic Party, but especially by Barack Obama.  The President is the de facto leader of the party, and more than anyone else, bears the responsibility for choosing and grooming candidates for succession.  The choice of Hillary Clinton was a poor decision.

Grooming for Presidential Candidacy

Hillary Clinton was groomed as a candidate for president from the last day of Bill Clinton’s presidency.  She was given the nomination for Senator in the deeply Democratic state of New York, which virtually guaranteed her election to the Senate.  After her unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008, she was named Secretary of State, presumably to improve her foreign policy credentials for a run in 2016.  Following the Benghazi embassy attacks and subsequent criticism, Obama replaced Clinton as Secretary of State – perhaps before events could do further damage to her chances for election. 

It seems to me that both posts – Senator and Secretary of State – were handed to Hillary Clinton on a silver platter because she was the wife of the former president.  She did not earn these posts by merit, and was not sufficiently tested by the process of competition.

Tenure as Secretary of State

U.S. foreign policy under Clinton as Secretary must be judged in terms of results.  Clinton established policies that elevated human rights and women’s rights as critical to U.S. interests.  Clinton and Obama continued the aggressive promotion of democracy begun during the second Bush administration.  Key events in her tenure included the uprisings of the “Arab Spring.  Also, an initial effort to “re-set” relations with Russia failed after the U.S. State Department actively promoted the eastward expansion of the European Union into Ukraine.  Clinton advocated aggressive responses to tyranny and oppression, supporting military intervention in the Libyan civil war and by training and arming the Syrian rebels. 

I have to wonder whether Hillary Clinton’s aggressive policies as Secretary of State arose from idealism, pragmatism, or from a desire to burnish her record as a tough leader, for her eventual presidential candidacy.  In any event, the results of her tenure have been terrible.  The prospect of improving Ukraine’s ties to the west ended in a brutal civil war and the annexation of Crimea by Russia.  Libya and Syria have collapsed into chaotic and ongoing civil wars threatening global peace.  One-third of the population of Libya has fled the country.  In Syria, hundreds of thousands have died in the fighting, and twelve million refugees have been displaced from their homes.  About five million refugees have sought shelter in neighboring countries, and about one million have sought shelter in Europe.  The refugee crisis has contributed to a backlash in Europe, threatening the unity and stability of the European Union.  By any measure, Secretary Clinton’s legacy in foreign relations is a disaster.

Appearance of Conflict of Interest

Secretary Clinton carries a reputation that she is dishonest and untrustworthy.  In polling leading up to the election, as few as 11% of voters characterized her as honest and trustworthy.  That reputation was established very early in her public life, and her actions during the years leading up to the election did little to dispel that perception.  I will discuss only the earliest and the latest of scandals involving Secretary Clinton; there were many in between. 

Commodities Trading Scandal, 1978 - 1979

Hillary Clinton was involved in a commodities trading scandal in 1978 and 1979, beginning just weeks before Bill Clinton’s election to Governor of the State of Arkansas, and continuing for most of the first year of Clinton’s term.  The general counsel of Tyson Foods (the largest employer in Arkansas) encouraged Hillary Clinton to trade in commodity futures, although Clinton had no experience in such trading.  Clinton made an initial investment of $1000, which over the course of ten months was successfully parlayed into $100,000.  This is about a 12,000% annual rate of return.  Needless to say, that is unusual.  An economics journal calculated the likelihood of her results at one in 31 trillion. 

Clinton did not make the trades herself, but allowed her broker to make the trades, often without her knowledge.  The broker was a former Tyson executive.  The broker placed trades for various clients, betting both ways against the market.  At the end of the day, the broker would assign winning trades to Clinton, and losing trades to the other clients.  The broker was later investigated by the SEC for various technical violations, fined and suspended from trading for three years.  Clinton’s supporters at the time defended the legitimacy of her trading. 

What I find unbelievable is that this smart woman, this Yale Law School graduate, was apparently unable to recognize a bribe when it was given to her.  Tyson Foods was one of the largest businesses in Arkansas, and necessarily had many regulatory issues before the state government.  Through illicit means, the company found a way to funnel $100,000 (about $300,000 in today’s money) directly to the newly elected governor’s wife.  But Hillary Clinton never renounced the gains, and never admitted any wrongdoing on her own part, or the part of Tyson Foods or its associates. 

Speaking Fees

Speaking fees are a fixture in Washington DC.  It is customary for public officials to receive exorbitant fees for giving speeches.  Bill and Hillary Clinton have been masters of this process of accumulating wealth.  Bill Clinton received $131 million dollars for speeches given after leaving the presidency in 2001, until 2015.  Hillary Clinton earned an additional $21.6 million, in less than two years, between 2013 and 2015.  For reference, a net worth of $150,000,000 is five times the threshold for the 99.9^th percentile in net worth in the United States. 

Hillary Clinton’s minimum speaking fee is $225,000.   A large majority of the organizations who engaged her are also engaged in lobbying the Federal Government; many have Federal contracts and/or previously lobbied the Clinton State Department.  About 40% of the organizations engaging Clinton were trade organizations; financial institutions were the second-largest group. 

These are enormous sums of money.  And the organizations paying these speaking fees had reason to look for favorable treatment in the event Hillary Clinton became president.  It gives the appearance of a quid-pro-quo.  

                Chelsea Clinton’s Contract Earnings

Chelsea Clinton is no longer young; she is an independent adult in her mid-thirties.  Nevertheless, she is a Clinton. In 2014, NBC News signed Clinton to a one-year contract for $600,000 as a news commentator.  Simultaneously, in that year she earned $300,000 as a board member for IAC/Interactive Corporation, a media company.  She was a board member for other organizations, and presumably also received compensation for that work.  Also in 2014, she earned a PhD in International Relations, and gave birth to her first child.  One can only wonder how she divided her time in each of these endeavors. 

It is unusual for someone to earn $900,000 or more in a year.  It is clear that Chelsea Clinton was given these contracts and compensation because she was a Clinton.  It appears to be another way of currying favor with a powerful family.

Clinton Foundation Scandals

Let me first say that the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charitable organization, doing good in the world.  That is not at issue.  The issue is that contacts established through donations to the Clinton Foundation appear to have carried over to the Clinton State Department.  Clinton’s personal secretary fielded requests from Clinton Foundation donors for access to Secretary Clinton.  While some of the requests were denied, it seems that there was a back-door to official channels at the State Department.  The existence of the Clinton Foundation set up the potential for conflicts of interest in performing the duties of Secretary of State.

                Summary of Conflicts of Interest

In my earliest ethics training at my career employer, I learned that it is insufficient to avoid wrongdoing; it is necessary to avoid conflicts of interest. Further, it is insufficient to avoid conflicts of interest; it is necessary to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. 

Hillary Clinton failed to avoid conflicts of interest, and her actions gave ample appearance of conflicts of interest.  As a candidate, Hillary Clinton earned her reputation with voters as an untrustworthy person because of her actions.  Clinton greatly increased the wealth of her family, through actions that gave the impression of conflict of interest. 

In a 2016 interview, David Gergen, a senior advisor to Bill Clinton in his presidency, was discussing the Whitewater scandal (another scandal, which I will not take the time to discuss).  Gergen said of Hillary Clinton: “She does not see the world in the same way that others do, when it comes to transparency and accountability.”

Although the practices of speaking fees and foundations may be typical of Washington, these conflicts of interest are real.  Just because everybody is doing it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a bribe.  Voters understand the appearance of corruption.  And Hillary Clinton must be completely tone-deaf to not understand the implications of those appearances.

Charisma and Oratory

I listened to Hillary Clinton’s stump speeches during the campaign, and compared them to speeches I heard from Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.  In my opinion, Clinton sounds wooden by comparison.  Her speeches do not show insightful reasoning and logic.  To me, Clinton’s speeches consisted of a lot of clichés strung together. 

In debate, her logic sometimes completely departed.   For example, the “Stop and Frisk” method of policing was a topic in a debate with Donald Trump.  Trump defended the practice, which had been found to be unconstitutional by the courts.  Clinton commented that the practice had been discontinued because it was “ineffective”.  This shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue – “Stop and Frisk” was discontinued because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL! 

Clinton simply did not seem to have a fundamental grasp of issues or the necessary intellect to think on her feet and reason persuasively. 

The Fix Was in For Hillary Clinton

In the earliest days of her campaign, Hillary Clinton had received the support of about 90% of the super-delegates to the Democratic National Convention.  These super-delegates are Democratic Party officeholders and officials, guaranteed seats and votes at the convention. 

Secretary Clinton was in a position to direct SuperPAC money to state parties.  The apparent trade of campaign money for super-delegate support gives yet another appearance of corruption to Secretary Clinton and her campaign.

It may be important for the party to coalesce support around a single candidate early in the campaign, but the process in this case short-circuited the primary process and the voters.  By making the process a coronation, instead of a competition, the Democrats lost the opportunity to engage the voters.  Voters care about the process, and were not pleased that Clinton was given the prize before the race.

Popularity

As mentioned at the beginning, Hillary Clinton was an unpopular candidate.  She has been unpopular with almost half of the nation for nearly a quarter of a century.  Hillary Clinton has been one of the most hated politicians among Republicans.  There are few other Democrats who can motivate and energize the Republican base as much as Hillary Clinton.  Well before the campaign, in polls and among my personal acquaintances, Hillary Clinton was deeply unpopular among men, unpopular among older women, and unpopular among Millennials.   She was highly popular only among professional women between the ages of about 35 and 60. 

So what were the Democrats thinking??  Why did Barack Obama choose to groom Hillary Clinton for a presidential run?  Why were there no other serious mainstream Democratic candidates?  Why did Clinton have 9/10ths of the super-delegates wrapped up on the day she announced her candidacy?  Why did the Democratic National Committee act to ensure that Clinton won the nomination?  Did no one think to run a focus group in each state, and seriously consider the results?

Losing Issues

In politics, as in all things, you have to pick your battles.  In the 2016 election cycle, Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration chose badly.  Although I agree with the President and Secretary Clinton on these issues, I recognize the political expediency of not fighting losing battles.  This is especially important with regard to fighting battles that cause you to lose the war.

In the early 1990s, the majority of Americans supported gun control.  There was a bi-partisan consensus that some regulation was necessary, and that these restrictions did not infringe on the Constitutional right to own guns.  But the issue became a major political divide following aggressive campaigning by the National Rifle Association (NRA).   Democrats lost control of Congress to Republicans in 1994, largely on the issue of gun control. 

In the aftermath of mass shootings in the United States, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke out on the issue of gun control.  This was a political mistake.  The issue of gun control in the United States was decided in the 1990s.  It is a losing issue for Democrats.  In the face of atrocities due to guns, it is necessary to ask Republicans to lead any efforts on gun control.  Efforts to push gun control on the nation in the face of Republican opposition are doomed to failure, and will lose all progress on other critical progressive issues, such as gay marriage, climate change, financial regulation, public assistance, etc.  I know that over 10,000 Americas die each year because they are shot by other Americans.  Another 20,000 Americans die each year in suicide by guns.  But there is no way to win on this issue – pursuing gun control will simply lose elections for Democrats.

Another losing issue was the issue of transgender access to bathrooms.  Unlike gay marriage or abortion rights, this is truly a fringe issue, but it became a defining issue for liberal politics.  By pushing Federal rules on access to bathrooms, Democrats alienated conservative voters.  There are people who feel their privacy or safety might be threatened, if access to public bathrooms was granted to people of the opposite biological gender.  Those feelings cannot be dismissed as not legitimate.  There are few transgender individuals in the country, and one way or another, they have been able to deal with this problem without Federal assistance.  This was a losing issue, and pursuing this reform as a headline issue was a mistake for Democrats.

The Loss of Middle America

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a convincing margin, but lost the election due to the structure of our republic.  Small states have disproportionate power by design of the Constitution.  To win the Presidency, it is necessary to win support across a broad cross-section of the country, and that includes conservative Middle America.  Hillary Clinton disparaged Middle America voters, calling half of them “a basket of deplorables”.  Hint – this is not the way to win hearts and minds.  Secretary Clinton needed to listen to these voters, and accept their criticisms of American Government.  Clinton had no response for the manufacturing job losses in Middle America.  Clinton had no answer for declining standards of living among middle-class workers.  Clinton did not accept or listen to the discomfort of white America with the growing diversity in the country.  Clinton did not have answers for the stagnation of black America in terms of opportunity, hopelessness or the prevalence of crime (and the consequent racism and fear among white Americans). 

If Democrats are to win the presidency, it is necessary to raise Middle America in prosperity and opportunity.  As another presidential candidate once said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The Swing of the Pendulum

Power in American national politics swings from party to party on roughly an eight-year cycle.  Since 1825, only rarely has a party held the presidency for longer than 12 years.  It is the natural state of our democracy that citizens demand some change and improvement.  That is probably healthy. 

Hillary Clinton was fighting against the current of public sentiment in this presidential campaign.  But still, considering the state of the country and the economy, the Democratic Party should have won this election.

Propaganda

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary Clinton famously complained about “a vast right-wing conspiracy”.   She was correct. 

Right-wing media blossomed and flourished – or rather, spread like a cancer – over the past 20 years.   Fox News became the nation’s leading television news source; right-wing radio bashed Democrats and President Obama 24/7 on multiple channels; religious television became a megaphone for right-wing politics; internet media such as Brietbart and The Daily Caller, became dominant in internet news feeds, and were amplified on social media.  All of these new sources play fast and loose with the truth; their “reporting” was designed primarily to undermine the legitimacy of the Obama administration through an unrelenting barrage of falsehoods, distortion and negative innuendo.  Completing the spectrum, foreign parties created counterfeit news websites, and populated those websites with fake news, that was regarded as truth by right-wing voters.  It is likely that some of the false stories were deliberate attempts to influence the election by Russia; campaigns of Russian dis-information are a standard feature of elections in the former Soviet Republics. 

Republican Party leaders and candidates, especially Donald Trump, also seem to have lost all respect for the truth.  The Trump campaign misrepresented the condition of the country on substantive issues of unemployment, immigration, crime, and taxes.  The lies and misrepresentations accumulate faster than they can be refuted.  It is unclear whether Trump is misinformed (some of his sources are the aforementioned false news sites) or if he is lying. 

Right-wing propaganda is one of the most troubling developments in the 2016 elections cycle.  Some conservatives would say that the process goes both ways, but there is truly no equivalence.  A quick check of Snopes, Politifact, FactChecker.org, or articles reviewing false news will show that right-wing falsehood exceed left-wing falsehoods by a magnitude of at least ten-to-one.  And it is clear that the propaganda is effective; voters believe the lies circulated on social media whether those lies were told by candidates, by right-wing news organizations, or fake news sites. 

The Democratic Party (and the nation) need to figure out how to respond to the right-wing propaganda campaign.  Propaganda threatens the fabric of society; it threatens our democracy, and it is a slippery slope into fascism.   Democracy cannot function if voters are hoodwinked; we cannot have decency in politics without a common understanding of what is truth.  I don’t know what to recommend to the Democrats, and I don’t know how we will solve this problem as a nation.  But I believe that we must.

Conclusions

In 2016, the Democratic Party lost the presidential election that they should have won.  Many factors played into that loss, but the most important factor is that Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate.

The Democratic Party needs to address the processes that generated such a deeply flawed candidate. Part of the problem is that the party is doing a very poor job of developing candidates and leaders in local elections.  I have observed many local races in which there is no Democratic candidate.  The unions appear to be the only truly organized part of the Democratic Party in identifying and running strong candidates. 

An example of how to develop a candidate can be seen in the career of Dan Sullivan, the current Senator from Alaska.  Sullivan is originally from Ohio.  He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, and earned a law degree from Georgetown cum laude.  Sullivan served in the Marine Corps from 1993 to 1997, and continued in the Marine Corps reserve, with later periods of active duty.  Sullivan moved to Alaska in 1997, and was soon named Alaska Attorney General by governor Sarah Palin.   After a year as Attorney General, he was appointed to the important post of Commissioner of Natural Resources, until his campaign for Senate in 2014.  I believe that Sullivan was identified as a potential candidate very early, and groomed for a Senate run through developmental assignments.  I do not believe that the Democratic Party is actively or successfully developing candidates in this fashion, or targeting states in which a talented candidate might succeed. 

The selection of Hillary Clinton as Democratic candidate for president showed a complete disregard for her weaknesses as a candidate.  These weaknesses included a poor performance as Secretary of State, and a reputation for corruption that goes back for over two decades.  To me, it is incomprehensible why she was groomed for a presidential run by Barack Obama, supported by the Democratic National Committee, and backed by the vast majority of party super-delegates before primary voting had even begun.

The Democratic Party must learn from the defeat in the 2016 Presidential Election.  The party must do more to develop young and talented down-ballot and local candidates.  Some of these candidates will develop into leaders of national caliber.  The party must subject potential candidates to competitive processes, to weed out flawed candidates.  The party must improve its ethical standards, and must not tolerate leaders with real or apparent conflicts of interest.  The party must find a way to combat right-wing propaganda.  The party must also develop policies which address the needs and values of conservative middle America. 

--------

 References

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/4-brutal-poll-numbers-that-greet-hillary-clinton-at-the-democratic-national-convention/?utm_term=.260eca27b714

Multiple polls show that 59% to 68% rate Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy, with dates ranging from May to August 2016.   At the time of the Democratic national convention, two polls approached 70% of people rated Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/6/1511462/-CORRUPTION-How-Hundreds-of-Superdelegates-were-Literally-bought-by-the-Clinton-Campaign

Superdelegate support for Hillary Clinton was obtained in a quid-pro-quo deal, through Clinton’s allocation of SuperPAC money to state party organizations. 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

Superdelegate support for Hillary Clinton was obtained in a quid-pro-quo deal, through Clinton’s allocation of SuperPAC money to state party organizations. 

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-national-poll-march-3-6-2016/1982/

Between 40% to 60% of responders rated Clinton as not honest and trustworthy, in polls dating from 2006 to 2016.   (pg. 7).

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/

Clinton’s standard speaking fee is $225,000, and she collected over $21.6 million in two years.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/heres-who-paid-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees

A list of organizations which contracted with Secretary Clinton for speaking engagements.  About 40% of the organizations were trade groups, and nearly all of the organizations engaged in political lobbying. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

Bill and Hillary Clinton received $153 million for speeches over the period 2001 – 2015. 

http://www.snopes.com/chelsea-clinton-made-900000-working-for-her-parents/

Chelsea Clinton had a contract with an annual salary of $600,000 in 2014, working for NBC news.  At the end of the term, her contract was converted to month-to-month, with undisclosed terms. 

Daughters of President G.W. Bush and Senator John McCain received similar contracts.

Chelsea Clinton was 34 at the time of the contract.

Chelsea Clinton simultaneously earned a $250,000 grant of restricted stock and a $50,000 retainer from Barry Diller’s IAC/Interactive Corporation.  Chelsea Clinton also completed work on a doctorate in international relations and gave birth to her first child in 2014.  Chelsea Clinton’s estimated net worth is $15,000,000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.577d142a3e0e

Reactions to the election, 11/9/2016

The following paragraphs are reactions to the election from my relatively small group of Facebook friends. These comments are among the most heart-felt and eloquent statements I have ever received from personal friends.  These are truly honest statements of deepest conviction from the depths of the soul. 

As I was reading, it occurred to me that there were similar themes in all of the posts: fear, shame for our country, anger, concern for the future of society, the environment, and the international community.  So I gathered them up into a single document, to place on this blog for all to read. 

I included a few words about the identity of the author of each post, just enough to characterize each author as an individual, with personal concerns about life and the lives of others.

Chemist, Missionary’s daughter, raised overseas, married with a young child–

I'm scared.

In the past few days, we have white supremacists marching in celebration. We have brown schoolchildren (many born on American soil) being told by their peers that they will be deported. We have high school students intimidating their classmates. We have women being threatened for wearing a hijab. We have members of the LGBTQ community being threatened and harassed. We have swastikas and all manner of hateful graffiti cropping up on every available surface.

This is not the America we are capable of being. This is not what the free world is supposed to look like. This is not a society worth being proud of. Now I -know- not all Trump supporters think this way. But it isn't enough to not-think it. To see it and say nothing is to tacitly condone it. To ignore the elephant in the room is to give it your silent blessing. So, if you think all of this is wrong? Don't just think it. Say it. Say it loud, say it early, and say it often. Shout it. Confront it where you encounter it. Let everyone know that this is not okay, and that America is capable of being better than this.

Mother of adult children –

I hate going out into the community and having people think that I voted for Trump, wondering if I am anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, because I am a middle-aged white woman.

Classmate, geologist, Japanese-American anti-racism educator.  Her father served in the U.S. military immediately after WWII.

This week I'm posting in FB political fray (more often it's all about my awesome kids and dogs). But as you know, for 20 years my passion has been anti-racism organizing.  I'm devastated. Trump is aligned with the KKK and he has exposed the dangerous racial prejudice in millions of people in this country. The record turnout of voters was not for the most qualified candidate but sadly for Jim Crow.

College senior, writer –

I have never been so terrified for my future and the future of my family and friends.

I am afraid and if you can't see why, I'm going to need you to go unfriend me because clearly you don't know me well enough to be considered my friend.

It's not so much the governmental changes that I fear exclusively, though they're significant.  Primarily, I worry about a cultural shift where behaviors of racism, sexism, etc, become more normalized because of our leader exhibiting such behaviors. I can keep my head down, I can get by, but at the end of the day I am a woman in a country so afraid of a woman leader that we elected a bigot. It is the climate surrounding his election that I am truly afraid of, not the man himself.

Geology classmate, retired –

After a long, pretty much sleepless, night...for the very first time in my life, I am embarrassed to be called an American. I am ashamed of that portion of our country that found ANY redeeming qualities in the baboon we collectively just elected.
I'll recover. WE will recover. One way or another, our country will survive. But this morning, I am ashamed.
The anger will come. After the pain.

My best buddy, for more than 5 decades was on the email stream at 3:40 this morning, and we shared a couple of notes back and forth. Quoting him here, because I don't have better words right now...
-----

My morning note to my kids. I feel like I failed them.

And lo, a darkness fell upon the Earth and covered the land so that day was night and the animals of the ground and sky ventured not forth from their burrows and nests.

The last time I was this disappointed about an election outcome was in 1980 when Reagan defeated Carter... It felt like the world had ended the morning after. I was working in Idaho then, and still remember driving around the countryside in a state of shock.

It is now up to your generation to set a new path forward into the future, one that includes and treats all people equally, that does not know sex or skin color or ethnic origin, and treats each other and the Earth with respect.

Where things ended last night is where they start this morning. The battle has begun.

Love,
Dad

Harvard Law grad, mother of young children

A lot of reactions and quotes on Facebook this morning. The one that sticks with me most: "it must be nice to be able to look past racism when it doesn't affect you."

I would say the same of being able to look past bullying, restricting who people can marry and even openly love, abuse and sexual assault, objectification of women, lies, and hate speech against people of all ages who face intimidation and discrimination because of disability, gender and gender identification, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and national origin.

I won't tell anyone what to do or think, and even the advice about comforting kids feels incomplete right now. I'm not feeling particularly like building bridges. Some of the aforementioned issues are divisions that I don't believe should ever be bridged. So, I can just speak for the impact of this election on my decisions going forward.

This has changed how I feel about discussing sensitive political issues. In recent years, I have been afraid of offending friends and family who disagree. I've read the posts about respecting political choices, about being tired of political posts on social media, and about agreeing to disagree. I can subscribe to those ideas to an extent: I absolutely agree with kindness toward all people. I absolutely agree that all people, no matter what they think, should be treated with respect.

I will not, however, stop speaking out against discrimination, against injustice, against bullying, and against lies.

The election is over, but I will continue to be vocal about my support of LGBT rights.

I will be vocal about my support of women's rights and women's issues.

I will be vocal about my support of decisions based on science and on the long-term survival of our planet.

I will be vocal about opposing policies that harm any person because of where they are from, their religious beliefs, or the color of their skin.

Repeating the poem from theologian Martin Niemöller, on the rise of Nazism:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

To my friends and family who are afraid right now: I will stand with you, and I will not be silent.

Retired geologist, father of adult children

So, let's tally up what will change --
> ACA (Obamacare) is gone, and with it my daughter's health insurance. I don't know what company will insure someone with epilepsy and high prescription medicine costs doing free-lance art work for a living.

> Roe v. Wade is gone. Abortion rights will disappear, at least in red states.  The result will be amateur abortions and deaths, and hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. Women whose pregnancies have gone wrong (like my wife some 28 years ago), will be compelled to carry a baby for nine months, only to give birth to a baby doomed to die at birth.  Such pregnancies are a danger to a woman’s life, but few doctors will be available or willing to risk providing an abortion.

> Women’s access to birth control may be restricted, not covered by insurance, or not available through insured prescription services (e.g., the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision).

> The Paris climate change accord is gone, and any reasonable action on climate change.

> Scientific research into climate change will be stifled, through redirection of the USGS, NASA, and NOAA, as already pledged by GOP senators.

> An end to free trade will mean the return of inflation, a scourge that was eliminated from our economy because of the efficiencies of free trade.  This will mean a higher cost of merchandise and necessities, and a lower standard of living for those on fixed incomes.

> Trade wars with our trading partners will mean a decline in economic activity.  We already know the result of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, which was a major cause of the Great Depression.

> Ten million illegal immigrants leading peaceful and productive lives in the United States will spend another 4 years outside of any legal protections. Many will be deported to a bleak future.

> America will take no responsibility to care for refugees, although we share responsibility for the conflicts which shattered their lives.

> LGBT rights will be taken away.

> NATO defense of the Baltic states is gone.

> Uncertain relations with Islamic countries. Will we just withdraw, or start bombing indiscriminately?

> Cuts to government poverty programs.

> Public lands may be given to the states to auction off, as pledged in the Republican platform.

> Conservation efforts of all kinds will be impaired.

> Conservative-dominated Supreme Court for a generation. The Court will give more power to corporations, churches, and wealthy political donors.

> Weakening of the separation of church and state. There will be more influence by churches in the schools, courts and local governments.

Oh, and we will make America great again.
Anything else?

Young professional in Public Health

Today, we put a racist, bigoted, sexual predator in the white house. Yes, I am deeply saddened that we were unable to break that highest, thickest glass ceiling. But even more, I am heartbroken and afraid of what this means for our country.

I am scared for myself. As a woman of reproductive age who does not plan on having children in the immediate future, I am terrified of losing control over my decision of if, when, and how to have children.

I am scared for my friends and family who fear their marriages and families being ripped apart, who fear for their lives and safety. To my black, brown, Latinx, Muslim, immigrant, differently abled, and LGBT+ friends and family: I am sorry we failed you. I am sorry we did not do more. I'm sorry for the hatred that has become more brazen, because it has come out of the mouth of our president-elect. If you need to talk, yell, scream, cry, or be hugged, know that I am here for you. You deserve better, and I will fight with you to ensure that you get it.

I'm scared for the rest of the world. The US election does not only impact Americans. Our president-elect has made very clear his feelings on climate change. Decisions on climate made in the next 4 years will impact our entire world for generations to come. US foreign aid saves millions of lives, providing access to AIDS drugs, contraception, malaria prevention and treatment, and life-saving medical treatments.

Today I woke up and spent the first 20 minutes of my day trying not to vomit. I went to work, managing to not cry until my last metro stop. I had to stop after getting off metro to breathe through and stave off a panic attack. I cried during Hillary's concession speech, during our all-staff meeting, on the bus on the way home.

So first, remember this feeling. This deep sick feeling in the pit of your stomach that makes you want to curl up in a ball and scream. For many who live with inequality and injustice daily, this feeling isn't new. But for those most privileged among us, this feeling will fade as our lives return to some semblance of normalcy and complacency. So remember it. Sit with it. Get to know it.

Today, be kind to yourself. Practice self-care. And once you have healed, pull that gut-wrenching feeling up to the surface and use it to fight for your friends, your family, and your country. 

Young energy professional

Repost -- I feel like I don't even know my country tonight. People who proudly wear their "deplorable" label and don their red cap don't realize how unsafe they've made people feel – esp. my friends whose mosques have been targeted, my friends who are stopped-and-frisked for no reason, my friends who can't hold their partner's hand in public out of fear, my friends who have had to accept misogyny turned mainstream.

But to my friends: I'm ready to fight for you. Trump is not some political genius, he's a con artist who rose to prominence through a racist birtherism lie and has been normalized by the ignorance of echo chambers. I'm heartbroken, but we're not going backward. I'm ready to fight for you.

Message me and let's get started.

Geology classmate, retired

Heartsick for our country and the world.

A British friend just pointed out that they consider today 9/11 (day/month). Similar level of fear and despair for half of the country, but this time the attack on our values came from within  :(

Friend -- Frankly, I think this is far worse for our country than 9/11. I know it doesn't sound right to say that, and I mean no disrespect to the 3,000 murdered on that terrible day, but an attack from the outside is easier to understand than this being blindsided from within. And I think that ultimate the consequences of this election will be worse for our country and the entire world. Betting that somehow the literal body count of a Trump presidency will be higher than the attacks of 9/11, too.

I'm leaving Facebook for awhile. I'm too angry with some friends and family and I need to find some calm if I ever hope to reengage with them. If you cannot comprehend the fear and upset of over half the population, maybe you should ask for help understanding rather than being derisive and reaffirming your lack of compassion and empathy for others.

Classmate, librarian, mother of Down’s syndrome child

A racist sexual predator who cheats his employees, mocks the disabled and thinks he's smart for not paying taxes has been elected the president of the US. I'm still stunned and heartbroken. His words have already unleashed the darkest urges of Americans and given permission to those who share his prejudices to act on them. What kind of world will this be for my disabled daughter?

Repost –  http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/11/09/heres-why-we-grieve-today/

I don’t think you understand us right now.

I think you think this is about politics.

I think you believe this is all just sour grapes; the crocodile tears of the losing locker room with the scoreboard going against us at the buzzer.

I can only tell you that you’re wrong. This is not about losing an election. This isn’t about not winning a contest. This is about two very different ways of seeing the world.

Hillary spoke about a diverse America; one where religion or skin color or sexual orientation or place of birth aren’t liabilities or deficiencies or moral defects. Her campaign was one of inclusion and connection and interdependency. It was about building bridges and breaking ceilings. It was about going high.

Trump imagined a very selective America; one that is largely white and straight and Christian, and the voting verified this. Donald Trump has never made any assertions otherwise. He ran a campaign of fear and exclusion and isolation—and that’s the vision of the world those who voted for him have endorsed.

They have aligned with the wall-builder and the professed p*ssy-grabber, and they have co-signed his body of work, regardless of the reasons they give for their vote:

Every horrible thing Donald Trump ever said about women or Muslims or people of color has now been validated.

Every profanity-laced press conference and every call to bully protestors and every ignorant diatribe has been endorsed.

Every piece of anti-LGBTQ legislation Mike Pence has championed has been signed-off on.

Half of our country has declared these things acceptable, noble, American.

This is the disconnect and the source of our grief today. It isn’t a political defeat that we’re lamenting, it’s a defeat for Humanity.

We’re not angry that our candidate lost. We’re angry because our candidate’s losing means this country will be less safe, less kind, and less available to a huge segment of its population, and that’s just the truth.

Those who have always felt vulnerable are now left more so. Those whose voices have been silenced will be further quieted. Those who always felt marginalized will be pushed further to the periphery. Those who feared they were seen as inferior now have confirmation in actual percentages.

Those things have essentially been campaign promises of Donald Trump, and so many of our fellow citizens have said this is what they want too. 

This has never been about politics.

This is not about one candidate over the other.

It’s not about one’s ideas over another’s.

It is not blue vs. red.

It’s not her emails vs. his bad language.

It’s not her dishonesty vs. his indecency.

It’s about overt racism and hostility toward minorities.

It’s about religion being weaponized.

It’s about crassness and vulgarity and disregard for women.

It’s about a barricaded, militarized, bully nation.

It’s about an unapologetic, open-faced ugliness.

And it is not only that these things have been ratified by our nation that grieve us; all this hatred, fear, racism, bigotry, and intolerance—it’s knowing that these things have been amen-ed by our neighbors, our families, our friends, those we work with and worship alongside. That is the most horrific thing of all. We now know how close this is.

It feels like living in enemy territory being here now, and there’s no way around that. We wake up today in a home we no longer recognize. We are grieving the loss of a place we used to love but no longer do. This may be America today but it is not the America we believe in or recognize or want.

This is not about a difference of political opinion, as that’s far too small to mourn over. It’s about a fundamental difference in how we view the worth of all people—not just those who look or talk or think or vote the way we do.

Grief always laments what might have been, the future we were robbed of, the tomorrow that we won’t get to see, and that is what we walk through today. As a nation we had an opportunity to affirm the beauty of our diversity this day, to choose ideas over sound bytes, to let everyone know they had a place at the table, to be the beacon of goodness and decency we imagine that we are—and we said no.

The Scriptures say that weeping endures for a night but joy comes in the morning. We can’t see that dawn coming any time soon.

And this is why we grieve.

Retired female minister –

My idealism is mightily bruised.

I know that the religious right has felt their country slipping away from how they were brought up, away from all they feel is good and right and, most importantly, away from their understanding of God's Law; and that this slipping has been a slow movement over many years.
- 1967 Teaching evolution in schools is protected by freedom of speech
- Late 1960s and early 1970s Sex education was opposed because it promoted promiscuity ... and the Sexual Revolution proved it.
- 1973 Abortion is legalized
- 1980s Courts began ruling that religious displays are not allowed on public land, including nativity scenes and Ten Commandment displays at City Hall
- 1990s to present Stem Cell Research
- 1994 first state legalized Physician Assisted Death
- 2015 same-sex marriage is legalized
(As I made this list I found it interesting that so much of what was done or undone had to involve legislation and/or the courts, and God's Law.)

On Tuesday night, my idealism got beaten up pretty bad. This is not simply the idealism of growing up in the 60s. My idealism is as a woman of faith who puts greater importance on how we treat each other than on how we legislate the way others should treat each other. All of a sudden, my ideal America began shaking, threatening to tip over.
- refugees welcomed into safety and given a chance to thrive
- racism and all other negative isms noticeably decreasing
- religious freedom, even religions that are not Judeo-Christian
- a fair percentage gap between the wages of the CEO and the cleaning lady
- true concern and care for the environment
- all people are equal and so all share the same rights
- generosity of the riches of our country with all the world
- health care for everyone
- a willingness to use our military to protect against cruel dictators and genocide throughout the world
These are among the ideals of America that make her great and these are just some of the ideals that Christians can support and work toward.

My bruises will heal and I will again pray that I may be used to spread God's Grace.

Fifth-grade teacher, foreign-born, recently retired –

Okay , so I lied. Here I am on Facebook. I'm only here because I have heard so much from my friends and former students about how disillusioned they are with the electoral process and how disturbed they are by what this election showed about the American people. I suggest that you can take solace in this. It's easy to gain power, it's not so easy to rule a nation. When Americans begin to suffer the repercussions of what I suspect will be some significant changes, they might not be so happy with the choice they made. It will be difficult for Republicans to deflect blame for the problems that ensue when they are in charge of the entire government. It is possible that we will all be proven wrong. Perhaps Mr Trump was just acting. Perhaps he will rise to the occasion. More likely the American system will prove itself to be fairly resilient. We will go through a rough period but then change will come once again.  You can also take solace in the fact that people have felt as you feel now for quite some time. Consider this quote from HL Mencken: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. This too shall pass.

            Friend --  If we are not killed or deported in the process

Classmate, professional theater actor and musician

I am scared.

I am scared for our planet, because four years from now may be too late to take action to avoid catastrophic climate change.

I am afraid for my friends and relatives of color, for my friends and relatives whose faith is other than Christian, for my friends and relatives who are immigrants, for my friends and relatives who are LGBT and/or Q, for my friends and relatives who have a disability, all of whom have now been given even more cause to feel that they are not full citizens of this great country, and who may be the target of folks who have been emboldened to think that their sense of entitlement is just.

I am afraid for all the women I know and love, that their long march toward equality with men must stretch even longer. (I also grieve for my mother, who at 86 may not now live to see a woman become president of the United States, something she has dreamed of for a very long time.)

I am afraid for my country, that our faith in our institutions of government, and of the media, even our mechanisms for agreeing on what is true and what is a lie, have been deeply, deeply damaged.

I am afraid that, while I trust that Martin Luther King is right about the arc of history, justice is even further off than I thought.

I know I have plenty of company. I read today that 55% of Democrats are scared of Republican policies, and 49% of Republicans are scared of the Democrats’. As a character in a play I was just in said (about the previous presidential election): “I’d ask them—you both spent how much on this election? I think I read—two billion dollars. Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me it was mostly spent scaring people about the other guy. So now—look what you’ve got—a whole lot of people who are very scared.”

That is indeed what we’ve got. We got what we paid for.

But.

Hillary won the popular vote. (The only reason she is not our President-Elect is because our Founding Fathers—as they then were—didn’t trust the unwashed masses and invented the Electoral College to save us all from demagogues and charlatans. Thanks, guys.)

Let me repeat that: Hillary won the popular vote. If you think you woke up Wednesday morning in a country you don’t know, you’re a little less than half right.

I’m sure Hillary feels much better.

But.

I can’t spend the next four years scared. That won’t do either my oncoming ulcers or this country any good. I’m not suggesting that there is nothing to fear. But fear helped get us here—I can’t see how being (only) scared will get us to a better place. One of my acting teachers was fond of saying, “You don’t run away from a bear, you run toward a tree.” So where are my trees?

A few days ago I posted a video of a flashmob dancing in pantsuits in Union Square. There were all ethnicities, there were men, there were strong women who weren’t shy about taking centerstage. They were joyful, cheeky, determined; they weren’t in lockstep but they were unified. As a metaphor for the America I love, it’s pretty damn good. I can run toward that tree.

My other trees are you. Each of you. All of you. Whenever I’m inclined to hide under a rock, will you please remind me of that dance? Or better yet, tell me about the America you love, and what you’re doing to dance it into being.

One of our pastors is fond of using a benediction adapted from William Sloane Coffin:

“May God grant you the grace never to sell yourself short. Grace to risk something big for the sake of something good. Grace to remember that the world is now too dangerous for anything but truth and too small for anything but love.”

Amen.

Retired Norwegian musician, grandmother, former resident of USA and Trinidad --

The world will never be safe again! I feel so sorry for my grandchildren and us all.

I feel for you all and it's a sad day for all of us! It was terrible to wake up to this shocking news. Will we ever feel safe again and will the next generation ever forgive us?

Neighbor, college friend, breast cancer surgeon

Repost:  If you wonder why so many of us are scared...How many times was I told this election cycle that it was safe to vote for Trump because all that bigotry was just bluster and would go away as soon as he was elected. Bannon was just named his Chief Strategist?! Doesn't sound like he wants those ideas to just go away as a campaign stunt.

            Following: 1930s News article about the rise of Adolf Hitler

Friend from high school church group, author of book of children’s book on learning techniques.

It's time to look in the mirror.

What do you want to recall about yourself and what do you want others to recall about you when you think back on this election?

It seems folks are able to remember every negative thing said about each candidate, but very little about the good.

How is what is being said and done now having a positive effect on our culture?

Rather than feeling angry, find a positive outlet for your emotions.

If you don't like the way the opposition is behaving then demonstrate the appropriate way to behave.

Make a donation, volunteer, do a good deed.

Not only will others benefit, you will begin to heal.

Anger breeds anger.

Goodness breeds goodness.

Do you like the way you feel right now?

Only you can change that.