Oct. 1, 2020
As we get ready to endure the craziness of the 2020 election cycle, I felt the need to revisit some thoughts I had following the 2016 election. (For the record, I know that campaigns have been in full swing for awhile, but after the debate on Tuesday, Sept. 29th, I believe the "craziness" is just starting.) I feel that some of my remarks in a Nov. 9, 2016, Facebook post may be as relevant this year as they were following the last Presidential election, so I am reposting them on this page (or you can access the originals here). I hope you find them worth reading.
Dear family, friends, and former students:
When I saw the outcome of the election this morning, listened to pundits explain and coworkers mourn the results, and read some highly emotional posts and tweets on social media, I was reminded about how much people actually care that their candidate win and the other party lose. That undoubtedly sounds absurd, but there are many of us who have been without a party for several elections cycles; relegated to choosing between the two major party candidates that might only partially represent our views, or casting our ballot for some “third party” that has no chance of winning. Essentially, a lot of us have lost every election for the past couple decades even though the parties traded control of the White House. For those of you that lost last night, we can relate because we always lose.
After the winners take their victory lap (hopefully with humility), and the losers lick their wounds (with dignity), I hope that the people of this country take time for introspection. Prior to this election and even moreso in the aftermath, there seems to be a familiar refrain: “How could people vote for him?” (Before the election people were also asking, “How can they vote for her?”) It is, or they are, the right questions. But it seems that people are eager to settle for the quickest, easiest, and least thoughtful answers – basically, that something must be wrong with the voter to cast their ballot for such a flawed candidate. However, from the party-less outsider’s perspective, both candidates were extremely unsavory; and we (the outsiders) seemed to frequently ask how both parties could nominate such people, and why would anyone vote for either. I do not say this to reinjure those who lost, nor pick a fight with you who won. Instead, I genuinely hope that people who supported each candidate sincerely contemplate why half the country voted for the opposing person and do the hard task of understanding the hopes, ideals, concerns, frustrations, anger, and everyday lives of everyday people – again, comprehend and empathize, not necessarily agree – with why people voted the way they did. And of course the correlating question: why did you vote for who you did? Was it because your candidate was a decent, moral, ethical, qualified candidate with positions on issues with which you wholeheartedly agreed? Or rather, they were “not as bad” as the other party’s candidate? From the outsider’s perspective, it seems that many voted because of the latter.
As for me, I always lose, so I returned to work as though it was just another election. But, I have the enviable task of explaining to high school students how our elections work, why people vote (or choose not to), persuade them how fortunate we are to live in a democracy, and why they should participate. When the students disagree with the outcomes of elections, I get to explain how our country is stretched and usually resilient; when the students “win” an election, I often have to remind them about John Stuart Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville, and James Madison warning leaders about the “tyranny of the majority.” Yes, I actually enjoy talking with students about real issues and challenging them to think more deeply about cause, effect, and responsibility. Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that neither of the political parties has been very conscientious of the other when they win; instead, they like to highlight that “elections have consequences.” It seems that both parties enjoy undermining my attempts to mold good citizens.
So I plead with all of you: the people whose candidate lost (many of whom are whining as though the apocalypse has begun, making empty threats to move to another country, criticizing others about whom they know absolutely nothing except for who they voted, and requesting to be “un-friended” or “un-followed” by longtime friends and acquaintances) and the people whose candidate won (who acted in the same ways when their candidates lost in 2008 and 2012), please think before you speak or type. Please attempt to understand and empathize before you melt down. And after both of these, if you’re still fretting the outcome of Tuesday night, please remember that our Presidents only serve four years and we get the opportunity to express our disappointment and hate with invective all over again!
On a related note, and I’ll close with this, please be careful about hoping, wishing, or praying for a President to fail just so your party can return to office. When a President fails it usually means that citizens suffer or soldiers die; that’s a high price to pay just so your side can have a “win.”
As we get ready to endure the craziness of the 2020 election cycle, I felt the need to revisit some thoughts I had following the 2016 election. (For the record, I know that campaigns have been in full swing for awhile, but after the debate on Tuesday, Sept. 29th, I believe the "craziness" is just starting.) I feel that some of my remarks in a Nov. 9, 2016, Facebook post may be as relevant this year as they were following the last Presidential election, so I am reposting them on this page (or you can access the originals here). I hope you find them worth reading.
Dear family, friends, and former students:
When I saw the outcome of the election this morning, listened to pundits explain and coworkers mourn the results, and read some highly emotional posts and tweets on social media, I was reminded about how much people actually care that their candidate win and the other party lose. That undoubtedly sounds absurd, but there are many of us who have been without a party for several elections cycles; relegated to choosing between the two major party candidates that might only partially represent our views, or casting our ballot for some “third party” that has no chance of winning. Essentially, a lot of us have lost every election for the past couple decades even though the parties traded control of the White House. For those of you that lost last night, we can relate because we always lose.
After the winners take their victory lap (hopefully with humility), and the losers lick their wounds (with dignity), I hope that the people of this country take time for introspection. Prior to this election and even moreso in the aftermath, there seems to be a familiar refrain: “How could people vote for him?” (Before the election people were also asking, “How can they vote for her?”) It is, or they are, the right questions. But it seems that people are eager to settle for the quickest, easiest, and least thoughtful answers – basically, that something must be wrong with the voter to cast their ballot for such a flawed candidate. However, from the party-less outsider’s perspective, both candidates were extremely unsavory; and we (the outsiders) seemed to frequently ask how both parties could nominate such people, and why would anyone vote for either. I do not say this to reinjure those who lost, nor pick a fight with you who won. Instead, I genuinely hope that people who supported each candidate sincerely contemplate why half the country voted for the opposing person and do the hard task of understanding the hopes, ideals, concerns, frustrations, anger, and everyday lives of everyday people – again, comprehend and empathize, not necessarily agree – with why people voted the way they did. And of course the correlating question: why did you vote for who you did? Was it because your candidate was a decent, moral, ethical, qualified candidate with positions on issues with which you wholeheartedly agreed? Or rather, they were “not as bad” as the other party’s candidate? From the outsider’s perspective, it seems that many voted because of the latter.
As for me, I always lose, so I returned to work as though it was just another election. But, I have the enviable task of explaining to high school students how our elections work, why people vote (or choose not to), persuade them how fortunate we are to live in a democracy, and why they should participate. When the students disagree with the outcomes of elections, I get to explain how our country is stretched and usually resilient; when the students “win” an election, I often have to remind them about John Stuart Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville, and James Madison warning leaders about the “tyranny of the majority.” Yes, I actually enjoy talking with students about real issues and challenging them to think more deeply about cause, effect, and responsibility. Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that neither of the political parties has been very conscientious of the other when they win; instead, they like to highlight that “elections have consequences.” It seems that both parties enjoy undermining my attempts to mold good citizens.
So I plead with all of you: the people whose candidate lost (many of whom are whining as though the apocalypse has begun, making empty threats to move to another country, criticizing others about whom they know absolutely nothing except for who they voted, and requesting to be “un-friended” or “un-followed” by longtime friends and acquaintances) and the people whose candidate won (who acted in the same ways when their candidates lost in 2008 and 2012), please think before you speak or type. Please attempt to understand and empathize before you melt down. And after both of these, if you’re still fretting the outcome of Tuesday night, please remember that our Presidents only serve four years and we get the opportunity to express our disappointment and hate with invective all over again!
On a related note, and I’ll close with this, please be careful about hoping, wishing, or praying for a President to fail just so your party can return to office. When a President fails it usually means that citizens suffer or soldiers die; that’s a high price to pay just so your side can have a “win.”
Predictably, people were too kind in their compliments (that's the benefit of sharing with family, friends, and former students). But there was a response to my post that was a thoughtful challenge and deserves to be shared, so I have posted it here along with my response.
Reader post:
I don't think people are hoping this President will fail because of their allegiance to their party. I think people are worried about the promises this future President has made that will be catastrophic to their lives and hoping his failure to keep his promises will less impact the negative consequences to their lives. You are missing the fears. I don't think people are haters. If you look past the obvious the posts seem more fearful. Even yours.
My Response:
(Person's name) - thank you for the response. I agree that many of the things that were said were hurtful (understatement) and scary (if they were attempted), and within the context of your response impact ethnic/religious minorities more than anyone else. Out of everyone in the country, these people undoubtedly have the gravest concern and the strongest right to give voice to their fears and pain. But in a survey of the social media realm, many people are not giving voice to these potential victims nor defending their rights. Instead, social media seems to have become everyone's "dear diary" that might overshadow the biggest issues. Maybe I just wish people were more articulate with their frustration.
On a different note, I am probably overly optimistic about government of fulfilling its obligation to be a check against itself. For the next couple years (until the 2018 midterm elections), congressional and Senate Republicans have a harder job than Democrats: to reign in their party leader in the White House. If the Republicans in Congress allow bad policy to prevail by neglecting their Constitutional duties, especially if it attacks a minority, then their party is further injured and Democrats take control for a longer span. I don't think this point is lost on Speaker Ryan nor Senate Leader Mitchell.
I assure you that I did not overlook nor underestimate voters fears - that's why I empathize with their loss - rather, I'm hopeful that reason will prevail.
Reader post:
I don't think people are hoping this President will fail because of their allegiance to their party. I think people are worried about the promises this future President has made that will be catastrophic to their lives and hoping his failure to keep his promises will less impact the negative consequences to their lives. You are missing the fears. I don't think people are haters. If you look past the obvious the posts seem more fearful. Even yours.
My Response:
(Person's name) - thank you for the response. I agree that many of the things that were said were hurtful (understatement) and scary (if they were attempted), and within the context of your response impact ethnic/religious minorities more than anyone else. Out of everyone in the country, these people undoubtedly have the gravest concern and the strongest right to give voice to their fears and pain. But in a survey of the social media realm, many people are not giving voice to these potential victims nor defending their rights. Instead, social media seems to have become everyone's "dear diary" that might overshadow the biggest issues. Maybe I just wish people were more articulate with their frustration.
On a different note, I am probably overly optimistic about government of fulfilling its obligation to be a check against itself. For the next couple years (until the 2018 midterm elections), congressional and Senate Republicans have a harder job than Democrats: to reign in their party leader in the White House. If the Republicans in Congress allow bad policy to prevail by neglecting their Constitutional duties, especially if it attacks a minority, then their party is further injured and Democrats take control for a longer span. I don't think this point is lost on Speaker Ryan nor Senate Leader Mitchell.
I assure you that I did not overlook nor underestimate voters fears - that's why I empathize with their loss - rather, I'm hopeful that reason will prevail.