What Just Happened?

As I begin writing this, it is the morning of November 9, 2016--the morning after the Election Day on which Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.  24 hours ago, many people—myself included—fully expected that the winner of the election would be Hillary Clinton. 

What just happened?

For one thing, I fully believe that Mr. Trump won because he received a significant number of votes from people who simply did not want Secretary Clinton to be elected.  Conversely, many of the people who voted for Secretary Clinton simply did not want Mr. Trump to be elected.  In the end, there were likely more of the former than of the latter.

But that’s only part of it.  The more I’ve looked at it and seen the breakdown of some of the exit polling, I believe that this was in large part a revolt of the “common” people against (to use a term I’ve heard to describe it) the “elite” in America.  I’m not sure that “elite” is the best word to use, but it seems to be the word of the day.  What is the word “elite” being used to describe?  Let me take a shot at explaining it.

In general, they are in many cases viewed (especially by the so-called "common folks") in certain ways:  they have attained formal higher-education degrees; they are philosophical; they are altruistic; they believe they know what is best—even for other people; they give off the impression that they think they are better than those people who are less educated; they tend to view things through the lens that the world is stacked against the poor and disenfranchised, and believe it is their duty to stand up for these people and give these people a hand up (often by giving them special status in society to make sure that they are not discriminated against). And those are just some of the ways the so-called "common folks" tend to view the so-called "elite."

The bottom line is that in the view of many, these “elites” are viewed as the self-proclaimed “experts” regarding the ways things “should” be.   Oftentimes, the people whom many consider to be the “elite” act in condescending ways towards “the common people.”  To me, one of the greatest examples of this type of condescension was illustrated in a television ad a few years ago for LED lighting.  The deep-voiced spokesman on the ad talked about incandescent light bulbs having been great in their time, but that they’d now outlived their usefulness.  The key phrase in the commercial was, “Nostalgia is dumb.”*

That commercial is very emblematic of the attitude many “common folks” tend to think the “elites” have towards them.  Herman Cain wrote a book with a title that sums up this attitude—They Think We’re Stupid.

In my opinion, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has been due in large part to many, many people in essence saying to the “elites,” “Don’t tell us what to do.”

* = see this URL: http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/nostalgia-is-dumb-cree-launches-led-promoting-tv-spots

A Choice I Don't Want To Make

In just a few days, it will be the final day for people to vote in the 2016 US Presidential election.  This election is going to be historic.

Barring some totally unprecedented occurrence, either the Democrat or the Republican nominee will win the general election.  There is one of those candidates whom I really don’t want to win.  On the other hand, I really, really, don’t want the other candidate to win.

I’m reminded of an incident that’s recorded in the Book of 2 Samuel in the Bible.  As the consequence of a bad decision and action by the nation’s leader, something bad was about to happen to the nation. The nation’s leader, King David, was given the choice of which consequence would occur.  Each consequence would be bad, but each one would be bad in different ways.  In the end, Kind David chose the consequence that would hit hard and quickly, but that would last the shortest amount of time.

I can see some parallels between the things from which King David had to choose and the choice the American people face in this Presidential election.  Regardless of who wins, there are very likely to be some bad consequences.

Let’s start with the Republican candidate.  We have in this person someone with basically no political experience, someone who has been recorded saying things that are disrespectful of various people, and who has often seemed to demonstrate the need for attention and self-glorification.  On the other hand, the Democrats have nominated someone who seems to have surrounded herself with a culture of corruption for many, many years.  While as of this writing there has been no “smoking gun” that has directly implicated her, logic tells us that she must have been either involved with or aware of the things going on around her.  Even the FBI director has said that at the least, her actions have been “extremely negligent.”

The biggest strength of each candidate is the fact that they are not the other candidate.  When the media and the people are talking primarily about one of the candidates for several days in a row, it is the poll numbers of the other candidate that seem to improve.

So, Americans are now faced with a choice between these two people.  Yes, there are indeed third party candidates, but none of them will win.  Either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump will win the general election.

I really don’t want Donald Trump to be the next President.  I’ve already described some of his shortcomings.  I think that if he were President, he’d be more likely to act rashly and in a non-statesmanlike manner in the event of a crisis, which might tend to make the crisis worse.

On the other hand, I really, really don’t want Hillary Clinton to be the next President.  In addition to the culture of corruption I already described that would likely tend to become even more perpetual around her as President, I simply disagree with the vast majority of her positions on the issues. 

Many have said that this election is going to be primarily about the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, as the next President will likely nominate three, four, or perhaps even more justices to that Court during the first (and hopefully only) term of his or her Presidency.  I tend to agree.  And for me, the bottom line is that I believe it is better for this nation to have justices whose judicial philosophies are more along the lines of the late Antonin Scalia and of Clarence Thomas than those of Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  The Scalia and Thomas model is generally to interpret the Constitution in light of what the things it says meant at the time those things were written.  The Breyer and Ginsburg model is more along the lines of molding the words of the Constitution into what they want it to say currently, or as some people have descried it, legislating from the bench.

The next US President is likely to leave his or her mark on this nation for decades to come, especially if he or she indeed is able to successfully nominate several people to the US Supreme Court.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have indicated plainly enough the types of judicial philosophy they would be looking for in Supreme Court justices, and the way I see it, this nation will be far worse off for a longer period of time if the Supreme Court has a super majority of justices in the Breyer-Ginsburg model than it will be if it has a majority of justices in the Scalia-Thomas model.

That being said, even though I really do not want Donald Trump to be the next President of the United States, I really, really do not want Hillary Clinton to be the next President, and therefore I will have to grudgingly support Donald Trump for President, knowing that he has the best chance of anyone else in the current race of keeping Hillary Clinton from being elected.  Then we can pray that the bad consequences of a Trump Presidency will be less, fewer, and shorter-lived than that of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.