I don’t know what will happen next week and I recognize that it may be some while before the dust settles on the bizarreness of the election of 2024. I have a predictable set of hopes and fears, but this is not about particular policy or personnel choices likely to result. Nor is this essay a close interrogation of the vagaries of the US political/electoral process, the separation of powers, or formal constitutional questions.
There will be real, substantive, and significant differences between a (K.) Harris Administration and one led by HWSNBN. I am hardly among those opportunists or idealists who argue that the two principal candidates are “two peas in a pod,” without a whisker of difference between them,” etc., etc. There is a lot riding on this choice we make next week, with both the environment and our democracy at real (irreversible?) risk and plenty of profound consequences elsewhere. So, while the choice before us is between wholesale catastrophe and intermittent adequacy, it’s pretty much a “no-brainer” from where I sit (unfortunately, that’s a standard still to be met by many).
However, the election will not—indeed, cannot—resolve many issues, problems, and conditions. Inertia is strong. Political gridlock is endemic. There’s a fundamental lack of leadership, vision, and radical/outside-the-box thinking. These concerns exist at global, national, societal, and personal levels. These won’t change and how we deal with them, as individuals and as a society, will mark our lives going forward regardless of who sits in the White House.
Of course, the election results will fundamentally frame the world in which we take on these challenges, but for me and many reading this, much of our day-to-day lives will not be so different. I am extremely fortunate in this regard. The election will not change my beliefs and concerns (nor those of most people in this country); and, if I can only hold the braying of the public sphere at bay and turn down the volume of the media buzz/hype (whether gasps of terror or sighs of relief), I still have my life to live. In this regard, you may find it useful to make up your own list of specific ways in which you would be affected by this outcome. Most of you are old enough to remember not only Bozo the Clown as a TV show, but also as an inflatable toy that you could whack at and have it bounce back (they’re still available on Amazon!). A friend of mine regularly reminds me that to maintain my equipoise, I need to be like that bounce-back toy and make sure that I have enough sand in the base that even when I get whacked, I, too, can bounce back. This is important and intensely personal work which can have many benefits, regardless of election results, but crucial there as well.
After all, despite the media hype, elections are rarely decisive. It’s not clear to me that we’ve seen one since 1932 (and, before that, 1860). They send signals, but they’re mostly mixed. Hillary lost by 80,000 votes in three states in 2016, Joe won by a smaller margin in three states four years ago. It’s hard to read very much into those outcomes. Underneath, our society remains scared and uncertain. The reconstruction of social coherence and political confidence (both of which elections tend to undermine) require decades of work in terms of communication, tolerance, and commitment. Social change is hard and rarely comes quickly.
Rolling back the hype, it’s difficult to say what a Trump Administration would actually do. His campaign rhetoric is full of scary stuff, but much of that is noise and bluster. It’s not going to be pretty, but it’s good to recall that the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress during the first two years of his prior term. There are still plenty of stops in the system; even if the threats are grave.
As to the two areas of policy which have most concerned me: environment and democracy, even after the sigh of relief which will follow a Harris victory, there is still a vast amount of work to be done and there is little in the Democratic platform or the likely policy decisions of a Harris Administration (even if the Dems squeak out bare majorities in both Houses of Congress) that gives cause for hope for significant progress on either front. While I was delighted that the Dems managed to ease Joe out and replace him without missing a beat, I have watched Harris for two decades as a public figure and have yet to be “wowed.” Much (most?) of her support is either generic Blue or ABT (anybody but Trump). Hopefully, she will grow in office.
However, given the practical realities of the political process, the best that can be hoped for is incremental progress and damage limitation. Embedded forces/inertia mean that neither adopting a comprehensive carbon regime or wholesale reform of our political culture are in the cards. Both of these depend on the kind of change in social attitudes that, historically speaking, usually happen only when forced. Our current situation on each count, while dire, is not nearly painful enough to lead to the kind of fundamental change necessary, whether in the context of political or cultural revolution.
This is no time for hand-wringing or fainting couches. Those who labor in either vineyard (or other less existential fields) must thus take up their hoes anew. Whether the water is rising incrementally or “tsunamically,” there is work to be done and little alternative.
There will be real, substantive, and significant differences between a (K.) Harris Administration and one led by HWSNBN. I am hardly among those opportunists or idealists who argue that the two principal candidates are “two peas in a pod,” without a whisker of difference between them,” etc., etc. There is a lot riding on this choice we make next week, with both the environment and our democracy at real (irreversible?) risk and plenty of profound consequences elsewhere. So, while the choice before us is between wholesale catastrophe and intermittent adequacy, it’s pretty much a “no-brainer” from where I sit (unfortunately, that’s a standard still to be met by many).
However, the election will not—indeed, cannot—resolve many issues, problems, and conditions. Inertia is strong. Political gridlock is endemic. There’s a fundamental lack of leadership, vision, and radical/outside-the-box thinking. These concerns exist at global, national, societal, and personal levels. These won’t change and how we deal with them, as individuals and as a society, will mark our lives going forward regardless of who sits in the White House.
Of course, the election results will fundamentally frame the world in which we take on these challenges, but for me and many reading this, much of our day-to-day lives will not be so different. I am extremely fortunate in this regard. The election will not change my beliefs and concerns (nor those of most people in this country); and, if I can only hold the braying of the public sphere at bay and turn down the volume of the media buzz/hype (whether gasps of terror or sighs of relief), I still have my life to live. In this regard, you may find it useful to make up your own list of specific ways in which you would be affected by this outcome. Most of you are old enough to remember not only Bozo the Clown as a TV show, but also as an inflatable toy that you could whack at and have it bounce back (they’re still available on Amazon!). A friend of mine regularly reminds me that to maintain my equipoise, I need to be like that bounce-back toy and make sure that I have enough sand in the base that even when I get whacked, I, too, can bounce back. This is important and intensely personal work which can have many benefits, regardless of election results, but crucial there as well.
After all, despite the media hype, elections are rarely decisive. It’s not clear to me that we’ve seen one since 1932 (and, before that, 1860). They send signals, but they’re mostly mixed. Hillary lost by 80,000 votes in three states in 2016, Joe won by a smaller margin in three states four years ago. It’s hard to read very much into those outcomes. Underneath, our society remains scared and uncertain. The reconstruction of social coherence and political confidence (both of which elections tend to undermine) require decades of work in terms of communication, tolerance, and commitment. Social change is hard and rarely comes quickly.
Rolling back the hype, it’s difficult to say what a Trump Administration would actually do. His campaign rhetoric is full of scary stuff, but much of that is noise and bluster. It’s not going to be pretty, but it’s good to recall that the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress during the first two years of his prior term. There are still plenty of stops in the system; even if the threats are grave.
As to the two areas of policy which have most concerned me: environment and democracy, even after the sigh of relief which will follow a Harris victory, there is still a vast amount of work to be done and there is little in the Democratic platform or the likely policy decisions of a Harris Administration (even if the Dems squeak out bare majorities in both Houses of Congress) that gives cause for hope for significant progress on either front. While I was delighted that the Dems managed to ease Joe out and replace him without missing a beat, I have watched Harris for two decades as a public figure and have yet to be “wowed.” Much (most?) of her support is either generic Blue or ABT (anybody but Trump). Hopefully, she will grow in office.
However, given the practical realities of the political process, the best that can be hoped for is incremental progress and damage limitation. Embedded forces/inertia mean that neither adopting a comprehensive carbon regime or wholesale reform of our political culture are in the cards. Both of these depend on the kind of change in social attitudes that, historically speaking, usually happen only when forced. Our current situation on each count, while dire, is not nearly painful enough to lead to the kind of fundamental change necessary, whether in the context of political or cultural revolution.
This is no time for hand-wringing or fainting couches. Those who labor in either vineyard (or other less existential fields) must thus take up their hoes anew. Whether the water is rising incrementally or “tsunamically,” there is work to be done and little alternative.
RSS Feed