On Tuesday, we found out who we are as a nation. We were faced with a choice between rivals who could not have been more unlike. Which one did we pick?
One of our choices was a 78-year-old man, born of wealth, who doesn’t care much for human niceties. His skill is an ear for the roar of the crowd, and he will follow that roar anywhere and say anything to hear it. He lives by the late Roy Cohn’s three rules: “Attack, attack, attack; admit nothing and deny everything; claim victory and never admit defeat.” Trump promised to improve the economy, close the border and lower taxes.
The alternative was a 60-year-old woman, a second-generation American and self-made politician. She promised to be president for all Americans, to make lives better, to listen to others – even those who disagree – and to fight for the country we love.
The choices were easily sorted: some voters liked the idea of turning the page to a new, hopeful generation; others believed that MAGA would take us back to a time when women’s rights didn’t matter much and immigrants were turned away from our shores.
As we now know, it was Trump the majority of Americans chose. We will return to the days of yesteryear; we will reward misogyny and racism and we will prepare for self-destructive moves. The environment will suffer and our democratic traditions will be tarnished. But the people – “the bastards” as they say – have spoken and we must deal with the consequences.
If there is a good way forward – and for now it’s difficult to identify – it is in relying on our Constitution, on the Bill of Rights, and on those public servants who can resist taking us backward. This nation already survived four years of that authoritarian leader. And while he may be better armed this time, we must have hope that we can endure and emerge stronger. Now is a time to regroup, to find strong leaders and to resolve that we can, we must, overcome.
Jean,
Your view of the voting public as “ the bastards” implies an even deeper misunderstanding of what just occurred in American politics. While you and I normally agree, I find this piece to be elitist, simplistic and divisive at a time when none of these qualities are helpful.