November 29, 2024
Dear Interested Readers,
Anxious Times. Can It Get Weirder?
Can a candidate claim a landside if they got less than fifty percent of the vote? Can you say you have a mandate if your raw vote margin was smaller than any popular vote winner since 2000, and the fifth-lowest since 1960? I expect that many events will occur and things will be said over the next four years that will trouble me. I also expect that often the justification for those disappointing outcomes and comments will be that “we had a mandate.” I accept that Trump was fairly elected, but I will not accept that he has a “mandate” nor will he be justified in ordering the deportation of millions, weaponizing the Department of Justice to exercise revenge on his enemies, “blowing up” the “deep state” which doesn’t exist, or implementing many of the radical strategies of Project 2025 that will surely undermine healthcare while he denies that he knows anything about it, but naming many of its contributors to high offices in his administration.
It must be obvious that I am still trying to recover from my election disappointment. My recovery is likely to take four years. Still, I hope the raw sense of confusion, disappointment, and concern about our national vulnerability that I share with everyone in my circle of friends will diminish enough to get back to having some sense of hope even if the realization of that hope will be long delayed and much of the recent progress toward improvement in the social determinants of health will probably have been lost. In the sense of the old adage of “two steps forward and one step back.” I fear we will take many huge steps backward over the next four years.
Perhaps a better metaphor for progress in healthcare over the next four years is the game of “Chutes and Ladders” that I have enjoyed playing with my children and grandchildren. If you know the game, you know that the object is to get to the goal at the top of the playing board. Progress is made by moving forward the number of steps that corresponds to your roll of the dice. Some ladders can hasten your advance to the next level, and if you land on one of these it is a great joy and a big jump toward the goal. There are also “chutes,” and if your roll of the dice causes you to land on a “chute,” that misfortune can suddenly negate a lot of previous progress. Some very long chutes negate almost all of the progress that you have made over several turns or rolls of the dice. I feel that as a nation we are about to take a very long slide down a chute that leads backward and carries us far away from the goal of the Triple Aim or our objective of living up to the ideals presented as our national self-image in our founding documents. You remember, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”
I hope that we don’t slide all the way back to 1965, or worse yet, find ourselves back to where we were in 1933 when everything seemed at risk in a nation with unemployment of 25%. That was when a very rich business-oriented president, Herbert Hoover, gave way to a compassionate progressive member of the “elite.” FDR initiated the way back on track with his “New Deal” guided by the expertise of what Trump now calls our “deep state.” History does not repeat itself but it rhymes, as Mark Twain is reported to have said.
It’s only been a little more than three weeks since the presidential election, and each new billionaire or commentator from Fox News that Trump has added to the list of nominees to cabinet positions or high-level administrative jobs feels like salt in an unhealed wound. Does it make sense that those who were concerned about the cost of eggs and exorbitant rises in their costs of living elected a man who has never known their pain nor has given any evidence that he understands anything other than their fear of crime perpetrated by imaginary faceless immigrants that eat our cats and dogs and are out to get their homes and jobs? It would be easier for a rational person to believe in ghosts and witches than to accept Trump’s view of what threatens most Americans.
At times, I feel like someone gave me a fatal diagnosis. Many people that I know seem to be suffering similarly. It has occurred to me that at the age of 79 and halfway to my next birthday, there is some possibility that I will not live to see the election of 2028. I hope that the president-elect, who is one year my junior, and I both make it to the end of his term because the only person who gives me greater concern about our collective future than the president-elect is the vice president-elect, J.D. Vance. Vance is dangerous because he is much smarter than Trump and seems to feel aggrieved in a very personal way by the efforts of the left to support progress through programs of diversity, inclusion, and equity.
I have my opinions about the dangers that threaten progress toward the Triple Aim that might be inherent in J.D. Vance’s political philosophy. Several years ago, after reading his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, I was fooled into imagining him to have a compassion that was born out of his personal experience. Since his political career began, as I read his interviews and listened to his public pronouncements, he has effectively corrected my confusion about what motivates him. I have new biases and projections in my quest to understand him out of fear of what he might do to our collective future if he ever got the chance. Recognizing that I am biased, I decided to use ChatGPT to try to get a more “objective” analysis of who he might be if he were to suddenly become president. It is good to remember that nine times since 1789 the vice president has ascended to the presidency either by the president’s death, eight times, or by resignation, once.
My question to ChatGPT was:
What is the political philosophy of Vice President-elect J.D.Vance?
ChatGPT gave me an answer based on the articles listed below that it searched:
“J.D. Vance political philosophy Vice President-elect 2024”
POLITICO — 55 Things to Know About JD Vance, Trump’s VP Pick – POLITICO
POLITICO — The Seven Intellectual Forces Behind JD Vance’s Worldview – POLITICO
POLITICO — Where Trump and Vance stand on 2024’s biggest policy issues
The synthesis of these articles was the answer I was given by the chatbot. I have bolded some of the important points that the bot writes:
Vice President-elect J.D. Vance’s political philosophy reflects his alignment with the “postliberal right,” emphasizing a departure from traditional conservative and liberal frameworks. His views draw heavily from thinkers such as Patrick Deneen, who critiques modern liberalism for prioritizing individual autonomy at the expense of community and tradition. Vance has stated his goal is to challenge and reform the existing political “regime” that he perceives as dominated by progressive elites and entrenched bureaucracies. His perspective seeks to restore what he sees as American values rooted in faith, family, and economic nationalism.
Key aspects of Vance’s political philosophy include:
- Economic Nationalism: Vance supports policies such as tariffs on imports, especially from China, to protect American workers and industries. He has echoed Donald Trump’s call for reshoring manufacturing and reducing the reliance on foreign goods
POLITICO
.
- Cultural Conservatism: Vance critiques progressive cultural trends, advocating for policies that prioritize traditional family structures and community values. His Catholic faith and intellectual influences, such as René Girard’s ideas on mimetic rivalry and social scapegoating, inform his approach to fostering societal cohesion
POLITICO
.
- Skepticism of Bureaucracy: He champions the idea of dismantling what he terms the “administrative state,” advocating for significant reductions in the size and power of federal agencies. Vance has discussed the need to replace career civil servants with individuals aligned with his administration’s vision
POLITICO
.
- Criticism of Globalization: Vance is wary of the effects of globalization on American sovereignty and economic stability. He opposes policies that, in his view, prioritize global elites or foreign interests over domestic concerns
POLITICO
.
Vance’s alignment with Trump’s policies strengthens the administration’s focus on economic populism and cultural conservatism. His political outlook suggests he may pursue an agenda aimed at overhauling federal institutions, reshaping trade policies, and addressing what he perceives as the moral and economic decay of American society. These priorities are likely to play a significant role in his vice-presidential tenure.
Perhaps a more straightforward description of the political position to which Vance has evolved comes from Wikipedia where we read:
During his time in the U.S. Senate, JD Vance has been described as a national conservative,[1][2] right-wing populist, and an ideological successor to paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan. Vance describes himself and has been described by others, as a member of the postliberal right. He is known for his ties to Silicon Valley. Vance has said he is “plugged into a lot of weird, right-wing subcultures” online. He has endorsed books by Heritage Foundation leader Kevin Roberts and far-right conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec.
On social issues, Vance is considered conservative. He opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control. He has taken a number of natalist positions. He has repeatedly expressed his belief that childlessness is linked to sociopathy, and advocated that parents have more voting power than non-parents, but in August 2024, he backtracked from that suggestion. Vance has lamented that increased divorces adversely affect children of divorced parents. He has proposed federal criminalization of gender-affirming care for minors. He supports Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. He opposes continued American military aid to Ukraine during the ongoing Russian invasion and prefers a negotiated peace. Vance has argued that the country’s largest and most powerful institutions have united against the right and has called for “a de-woke-ification program”. He is critical of universities, which he has called “the enemy”.[29] Vance is also critical of both the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Unlike the president-elect whose positions often seem to vacillate, Vance has deep-seated and long-considered opinions on every issue of the day and could be a political actor for the next thirty years which will give a man of his ability plenty of time to develop and employ strategies to achieve his goals and overcome resistance to his opinions and world view perhaps by authoritarian force.
My bias is that Trump’s political philosophy fits into no particular slot and has little depth. He goes with what sells and excites his base, and that is much of what makes the situation unstable. If we replay the past four years, what we have heard is lies about an election he lost, and a desire for vindication and revenge on those responsible for the wounds to his self-esteem, coupled with a demand for loyalty and adoration from those who seek personal gain by affiliating with him.
My bias, which is shared by many, is that the only thing Trump really cares about is himself. His stance on abortion is a good example of his lack of conviction about anything other than positions that favor his agenda of personal power. At one time he was “pro-choice,” and later he was pro-life. When abortion became a “losing issue” in 2022, he became content to say that he is proud to have appointed justices that sent abortion back to the states. Vance is more dangerous because he has evolved real positions, and he has the intellectual capability to devise and execute strategies that will promote those positions. He is also only forty and will be around for a long time.
Since the election, I have unsuccessfully tried to avoid media that would cause me to sink further into despair. My habit is to listen to podcasts and audiobooks while I exercise. When I was younger (1979) I was an early “Walkman” user and would listen to “tunes” on my runs. After I discovered Garrison Keilor in 1981, I would record his two-hour shows on Saturday evenings and then listen to them on my Walkman over and over again each week. Regrettably, Garrison had a “Hash Tag Me Too” shaming which was a great disappointment to me, but long before that happened an iPod had replaced the Walkman, and it has been more than a decade since the iPhone replaced the iPod. I have shifted from tunes to podcasts and audiobooks while I exercise.
The two podcasts that I enjoy the most are from Ezra Klein who was one of the founders of Vox, and Sean Illing’s podcast from Vox, “The Gray Area.” The November 19th edition of “The Gray Area” was a great fit for my recent mood. The title was “America’s Reactionary Moment.” Click on the link to hear the show or read the transcript. I will give you some of the highlights. Illing begins by setting the stage for what is to follow:
It is been almost two weeks since the presidential election. The outcome was not what I wanted, but I cannot say that it was unexpected. If anything surprised me, it was how definitive the Trump victory was. And if anyone says that there’s a simple and obvious explanation, I would suggest not listening to them anymore. There isn’t a reason for this. There are many reasons and we just don’t know enough right now to parse it out in a satisfying way.
But that doesn’t mean that we have no idea what just happened. We know plenty. The road to this result has been paved for several years. And regardless of who you voted for or what your politics are, I think we all have a duty to read the political room as best we can…Today’s guest is Zack Beauchamp.
Illing then gives us some background on Beauchamp.
Zach is a friend and a colleague here at Vox who recently published a book called “The Reactionary Spirit.” The book is a deep dive into the historical roots of reactionary politics, both here and around the world. But more than that, it’s a book about democracy and the contradictions and the conflicts at the heart of it. What we can say pretty confidently is that the roughly 75 million people who just voted for Trump were saying no to something. They were saying no to lots of things to be more accurate, and I am genuinely interested in understanding what so many people were rejecting and why and what lessons we might be able to draw from that.
Saying “No” often has a cost. I immediately wondered if those who used their vote to say “No” had given any thought to the personal or collective cost of saying “No.” Illing and Beauchamp are friends and colleagues so the dialogue is chummy at times:
…there’s a lot I wanna talk about, but I think right out of the gate, let’s just address the orange elephant in the room. Yeah. Trump didn’t just win the election. It was a fairly resounding win, not a historical blowout, but he gained ground with basically every single demo…we’re not here to do an autopsy, but now that we’ve had a few days to let everything sink in, how are you feeling? What do you make of what happened?
After a pause, the answer begins:
…Well, …I would say we should separate out two different things, right? Like one is our analysis of what’s happening, and the other is how we feel about what happened… I think we’re still pretty early to have any really strong conclusions, but I will say that most of what people are saying …doesn’t make a lot of sense to me…If you notice, there’s like a one-to-one correlation between someone’s very detailed account of what happened in the election and their own priors about…politics…
I think that my reactions are a good example of what he is describing. Remember that I am condensing a transcript, so at times the language may seem a little clumsy, but we are getting to the good part fast. I will continue to use bolding for emphasis.
…Just from looking at the data you mentioned that Trump gained ground with basically every group, right? Like, well, that only happens this kind of uniform swing when there’s something, some big structural factor at play, right? And the things, the candidates that make sense to explain a shift from 2020 to 2024 are inflation, right? That’s new and it’s been politically potent everywhere and historically in the US it matters. And anti-incumbent sentiment, which is a, like a worldwide fact. It’s true in democracies around the world, her biggest losses were in blue states and that suggests that something is going on.
Illing asks an important question:
From your point of view, what were the most important material stakes of this election? And I realize there’s a lot of uncertainty here, but it’s not a complete black box. And I’m asking because I think this question is mostly lost in all the horse race coverage and all the arguments about exit polling and what went wrong for Dems.
The answer Beauchamp offers is a little at variance with my biases. He gives Trump some credit for a strategy learned from the experience of his first term:
Yeah, look, what matters is that Donald Trump is coming into his second term agenda with a very clear vision of what his movement is for and what he wants to wield power to get. And that was not true in the first term. The first term. Those of us that remember and and were journalists during it especially was, was chaotic. Right? A lot of things happened for reasons that were hard to tell. The policy process was not streamlined. The people in charge had fundamentally different ways of thinking about politics. This time around though, I expect chaos, Trump is not a very good manager, just of people like a good executive. But at the same time, I really do think that he will come in and attempt to implement at least three things that are really important to him and that have huge, huge stakes for people’s lives.
He has my attention. So what are those three things?
The first one is mass deportation. I, I think there’s no doubt that’s going to happen, how mass it is exactly. we don’t know. But it could be in the millions of the number of people who are deported, which is, would be a massive disruption to all sorts of different things from businesses that depend on these people to work from most importantly, to the people themselves and the communities that they’re a part of, of them being suddenly thrown out of the country, some of whom maybe have never even left the United States…It will be very ugly.
That was chilling. What is the second thing?
…think a similar thing like that is tariffs. We’re gonna get fairly significant economic disruptions. If you’re talking people don’t like inflation, just wait until every foreign-made good is 10% more expensive, right? …If Trump targets China, you know, escalating trade wars in the first term, I think, well they continued through Biden’s term, by the way, contributed non trivially to rising prices and economic slowdown. I would expect that.
Beauchamp has given us two unpleasant things to ponder which were probably not given all that much weight by the voters who voted for Trump because they thought milk and gas were cheaper in 2019. Now for the third.
And then the third thing, which is kind of hard to process as a material stake in the way that you put it, but it’s like really important, is Trump’s plan to remake the federal government in his, in his image and purge critics from the ranks of the civil service. This is profoundly dangerous, I would say, because what it means is not just asserting political control over the state, though there’s that right?
President Reagan famously said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” [ Reagan’s math work’s if “I’m” counts as one word.] Reagan wanted to drastically reduce the size of government, but the number of federal employees actually grew by 4.6 % during his eight years in office. Trump has “hired” Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to take an axe to the government and “the deep state.” It is right out of the script of Project 2025.
Objective number three will be no easy lift like deporting a million people because government employees have connections. Beauchamp continues:
There is a significant element of democratic threat there. And all the downstream consequences or potentially quite dangerous depending on which department you look at. You know, I recently wrote … about Trump’s plan for one division of the Justice Department, the Civil Rights Division, and how much that could be used as a tool of weakening certain foundations of American politics. And that’s just like one sub-branch of one branch. But it’s also not just democracy, it’s also every function of the federal government that depends on nonpartisan experience. Civil servants could potentially be affected by this. And the consequences are, are almost unpredictably large, right?
We can file Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services under item number three. In reference to Kennedy, he says:
…if that happens, we’re talking about an unprecedented experiment in a developed country, reversing vaccines that had kept the rate of preventable diseases down at a marginal level, the reduction of herd immunity across the United States. So it’s not just a red area problem. If red states are the only one following federal guidance, it’s like potentially we’re talking national returns of diseases thought defeated…
The conversation goes on. At one point Illing and Beachamp make the point that a lot of voters may not have taken what Trump said and promised at his rallies seriously. Perhaps they saw his rallies as big parties for a lot of people who felt disrespected and disadvantaged in a world where they had little control. Maybe they felt like they were at a Grateful Dead concert. Many of Trump’s supporters did not really believe Trump was serious about all the things he was going to do. It was just part of his showmanship and not to be taken seriously. Beauchamp has a comeback to this fantasy:
..If Trump does the things that he says he’s going to do, the revisions to the American state and the functioning of the American government model will be fundamental…what is so wow to me, how much of the faith in Donald Trump really depends on him not doing the things he says he’s absolutely going to do. I mean, yeah. What a gamble…They go to vote because they’re angry that groceries are somewhat more expensive and they have seen some scary images of the border on TV. …Not everybody spends all day thinking about politics. They’re not supposed to, and they shouldn’t, right? It’s not like they’re morally blameworthy for casting a vote based on limited information. Again, that is what democracy is. It’s just that, the sheer radicalism of Trump’s policies are difficult to understand unless you’re really well versed in how the US federal government works, that’s not most people.
The radical nature of Trumpism or the MAGA movement is the defining characteristic of the moment. Most of the remainder of the conversation is a description of traditional conservative political thought and how radically different MAGAism is from those mainstream concepts. The sad reality is that the Republican party, the Grand Old Party, or GOP, has been coopted by Trump. The faithful core of the old GOP has been beaten into submission or has bitten on the tainted apple of desire for more power that Trump offers to them at the high price of their reputations. No one has been more clear about this trade-off of power for principles than Liz Cheney.
Through fear of what Trump might tell his base to do to them the next time they face a Republican primary election, many of the old guard of the GOP have become sycophants and cower in the face of his narcissism. The conversation eventually turns to the reality that Trump is not as reliable as a traditional conservative. Conservatives aren’t radicals. Trump is a radical who says that he is going to radically change our government, and if he does what he promises, it will have far-reaching consequences that will bring disappointment and hardship to many who so gleefully voted for him.
Cheney predicted that in the end, the sycophants who cowered to Trump or sold out for power would regret their weaknesses. The sad possibility is that the GOP old guard may suffer embarrassment, but for many the suffering will be much more visceral and tragic. Those who will suffer the most are the distressed voters who believed Trump and trusted that life would be better for them under the “rule” of a strongman who presented himself as the answer to all of their woes and promised to destroy their enemies and return their nation to the greatness that was never lost. For them, the wounds will be much deeper than a loss of self-esteem.
Before Trump, people who called themselves conservative Republicans cared about “norms.” Those Republicans advocated for a strong defense against communism and other forms of authoritarianism. They preached the benefits of low taxes, free trade, no tariffs, and small government. Trump has captured and fundamentally changed the foundations of the Republican Party. Again, ask Mitt Romney or Liz Chenny about what they think Trump has done to their party, and ask Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio to look in the mirror.
The voice on the podcast described the death of the old GOP’s brand of conservatism. The dagger that did the deed was a reactionary weapon.
[The old GOP believed] that there’s value in the way that things are. What differs between the two of them [the old GOP and MAGA GOP] is that conservative parties don’t see potential social change as an indictment of democracy. That is to say, even if a democracy or an election produces an outcome that they don’t like, that threatens to transform wholesale certain elements of the social order, a conservative would not throw out the political order as a consequence of that, reactionaries are willing to do that. And my view is that the core of the Trump movement, which I wanna distinguish from every Trump supporter, they’re not the same. Yeah. But the people who have given Donald Trump an iron grip on the Republican party, that sort of hardcore of support are animated primarily by reactionary politics by a sense that things have gone too far in a socially liberal and cult and culturally liberal and even in some cases economically liberal direction.
Illing becomes philosophical as he speaks in support of “traditional conservatism.”
The challenge of political life is navigating the tension between order and progress, which is very difficult. And you put it well in the book [that Beauchamp wrote], the small D Democratic right sees virtue in tradition and danger in change. There’s wisdom in that orientation.
Beauchamp responds to Illing’s analysis of true conservatism:
…a lot of what Trump wants to do is tear down the things that make that [democracy] work. And gee, I feel very conservative saying this, but like, if you take a hammer to that system and you change it because you think it’s not delivering in certain ways…you don’t know what the consequences are going to be. And I think they’re likely to be quite dangerous…
…And so they’re [the true conservatives] willing to tolerate losing elections periodically, as long as they think that they’ll have a chance to win again in the future…when you lack a conservative party or what was once a conservative party is no longer acting as such, your political system [is in trouble].
A conclusion then is:
So we can make the case that Trumpism is a reactionary movement, but what is Trumpism really reacting against? What it seems to be increasingly is a rejection of the ruling elites, a rejection of the professional-managerial class, which is more about class and culture than race and the preservation of traditional hierarchies.
What follows in their analysis sounds a lot like what the research and books of Arlie Russell Hochschild suggest.
If you look at Trump’s core supporters, though, the story of racial and social grievance, right? Anger about immigration, a kind of sense of alienation from the United States after Obama really personalized the changing social order. All of that is remarkably consistent among the people who will turn out to vote for Trump in a Republican primary. It’s been true over and over again. The evidence is overwhelmingly strong that this is their core motivation in Trump politics, right? And in being engaged in this movement and nothing about this election result changes that, what that part of the story does is help us understand why Trump has gained control over one of our two major political parties.
Illing begins to describe how he views Trump:
But Zach, this is my problem with him, right? Like he’s not committed to anything. I mean, I have always felt that his political genius consists in making himself into an avatar onto which people can project whatever they need to project. And he’s just so well equipped to be this kind of vehicle that I’m talking about. Because again, I…genuinely do not think he cares about anything other than himself. I mean, if the man had to choose between preserving liberal democracy for another century, or building a beautiful new golf course in Saudi Arabia, is there any doubt he’d build the …golf course? No. No. That’s his level of commitment to democracy.
He goes on to say that Trump doesn’t have the political depth of Victor Orban, India’s Modi, or even Netanyahu. A further thought he expresses is that Trump lives in a zero-sum world of winners and losers, and does not understand the advantages of non-zero thinking in international relations or in his approach to governing a complex society. That leads to a conclusion:
Yeah, I think it’s clear he certainly has instincts and I think those instincts can be properly called authoritarian.
The conversation turns to Vance:
… I’m curious what you make of JD Vance. …I know he’s shape-shifted quite a bit here in the last few years, but he seems to me to be seriously ideological in a way that maybe Trump isn’t, I mean, is he the future of the political right? What does he represent? What does he want?
Beauchamp’s answer is based on his own experiences with Vance and his association with other people who have known Vance for a long time and have witnessed his evolution:
…he is sincerely ideological…JD is really motivated by anger. He’s just a very angry person…that anger has shifted from being an anger in part at the circumstances under which he was raised, which you can see on display in Hillbilly Elegy…And the way that he talks condescendingly in a lot of times about other poor whites and about how he’s the one who made it out and they have cultural problems that prevent them from doing so. It’s a sort of very classic conservative text in those ways. But now his resentments, he’s always had these, but I think they’ve come to the fore, are primarily directed at other elites, right? He’s angry about the way that the elite establishment in the Ivy League and the business world and the political world treats people who believe the sorts of things that he believes. And he’s come to align himself with Trumpism and builds a broader doctrine around that anger that’s very, very hostile to the current political arrangement…
The conversation ends with a mixture of caution and hope that once again reminds me of “Chutes and Ladder.”
…I don’t think this is the end of the republic, but I’ll confess that I’m not super duper confident about that…I think that there is no reason to expect that elections will be formally abolished by 2028 in the way that some like wild-eyed commentators in social media have suggested. I think there is a moderate chance that their fairness is severely undermined by them and not an unreasonable one. And I think there’s a very high chance that some of the core institutions of American democracy will be damaged in ways that have significant long-term consequences put differently. I…don’t think this election itself is the end of American democracy. …I do think it is the beginning of the greatest test of American democracy. I mean, it’s the degree to which they have clear and cogent plans about what they want to do and the anti-democratic nature of those plans coming into office…last time, Trump didn’t have a vendetta against large chunks of the government. He didn’t believe an election had [been] stolen from him …And he really believes that as like a slight, … at the very least, he thinks it is a public blemish that needs to be shown to be false to many people. Because if many people believe that he won, then that’s good enough. It doesn’t matter if he actually did. Well, what matters, I guess maybe to put it differently is Donald Trump’s honor, and the honor of Donald Trump must be avenged at all costs.
There is even more in the conversation that you may want to explore. After all is said, I am left with the simple reality that the outcome was not what I wanted. It terrifies me to try to imagine the harm over the next four years that individuals and the entire nation will suffer, and the setbacks to the progress toward a more beneficial system of healthcare that we will see. But again, I cannot say that it was unexpected. Ironically, democracy did work this time around since the candidate who lost graciously conceded defeat and there were no legal challenges or refusals to accept the outcome. If anything surprised me, it was how the election seemed to come down to two issues, the price of groceries and fear of immigrants. I doubt that many Trump voters fully understood the radicalization that their vote would support. Maybe, in time we may learn that a core issue was that some voters just preferred a narcissistic felon who massaged their biases to a talented and sincere woman.
Despite what I have offered you, I would suggest that for at least a while you remain skeptical when someone like me or the fellows on “The Gray Area” try to morph their biases into predictions for the future. If anyone says that there’s a simple and obvious explanation for what we have experienced, how we should process and understand its meaning, or what will happen over the next four years, I would suggest that you remember that it is all speculation that is heavily influenced by personal experience and biases.
I don’t think there is a simple reason or three reasons for the election of a candidate who was as flawed as Trump appeared to be. Reality is very complex. Having said that, I will admit that I will continue to listen to a lot of interesting conversations that are nothing but speculation. Somehow, I feel a little better knowing that many others share my wariness and curiosity about what might happen over the next four years.
Snow On Thanksgiving!
When I was a child one of my favorite books was an illustrated presentation of the song, “Over the River and Through the Woods to Grandmother’s House We Go.” Click on the link to hear the song and see pictures that look a lot like my little book. Listening to the song and viewing the illustrations, I realize that it may be more about Christmas than Thanksgiving, but I always connected it to Thanksgiving.
Living in the South there was no chance short of some once-in-a-century freak weather that we would have snow on either holiday, but I had my fantasies. After moving to New England in my early twenties, I did relish those years when we had a “white Christmas.” I do remember a few years when we had significant snow before Thanksgiving, but for the first time that I can remember, this year our first significant snowfall was on Thanksgiving. Starting in the early morning hours we got a very generous dump of heavy wet snow.
Before the snow was a certainty, I had picked a picture for this week’s header that I took near sunset on November 30, 2023. You can see that the lake is beginning to freeze and the fading evening light is reflected beautifully, but there is no snow. Maybe next Thanksgiving I will use a picture like the one below that I took during our snowy Thanksgiving yesterday. We have had a little ice in coves, but the lake is not frozen yet.
This week I listened to a great podcast from NPR’s “Throughline” that gave the history of how a remarkable woman, Sarah Josepha Hale, made Thanksgiving a national holiday. Mrs. Hale grew up, married, and had four children in Newport, New Hampshire in a house that is about ten miles from my home in New London. Her husband died unexpectedly after they had been married for only eight years. There is a historic marker in front of the house.
Newport is now a center of great poverty. The mills and machine shops that once made Newport prosperous have now closed. Its most significant employer now is a gun manufacturer, Ruger Firearms. After her husband died, Mrs. Hale began to write and then edited the most significant magazine for women. She was the “Oprah” of the 19th century, and she used her position to convince President Lincoln that a national day of Thanksgiving might help heal the deep divisions of the Civil War. That first official Thanksgiving was in 1863 after the momentum of the war turned at Gettysburg.
Perhaps, what we need now is an encore from both Mrs. Hale and President Lincoln. It is reassuring that though damaged deeply, the nation survived the Civil War. Maybe sometime in the distant future, perhaps in 2028, we will be able to enjoy a Thanksgiving when we give thanks again for the survival of our nation.
Be well,
Gene
