I really, honestly, am trying to be less political on Facebook.
So I’m going to use this blog to put in writing some things that have been bouncing around in my head.
I spend a lot of time thinking about how differently we perceive things. I’m often getting an idea that I think clearly reveals the difference between the thinking of liberals and conservatives (and Trump supporters, who may not fall into either camp). These ideas change pretty often.
Here are my latest ones, which mostly focus on those who supported Clinton and those who didn’t vote; voted for a third-party candidate; or who voted for and continue to support the current president.
CURRENT THEORY NUMBER ONE: The difference between Clinton supporters and all the others mentioned above is whether or not they believe the U.S. was in better shape at the end of 2016 than it was in January 2009.
From what I understand about Trump supporters and others, they believe that our nation has become a worse place under the Obama administration. Many, as I understand it, also believe that the Republicans have let them down, for different reasons, and that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the intention or ability to improve things.
If I can take the liberty to sum up the thinking of those of us who supported Clinton (and are frankly horrified by some of the policies coming out of both Congress and the White House today), we think we are in many essential ways better off that we were in 2009. This is in large part owing to the action of the president and efforts taken in the first two years of his administration, when there was a Democratic majority in Congress.
To be fair, I think that some of the actions taken early (bailing out the car industry; certain parts of the stimulus package) had bipartisan support. But I also think that had Obama had a stronger Democratic majority he would have done what many economists urged: created a stronger stimulus package that would have spurred private sector job growth (private construction contractors, engineers, etc. plus secondary jobs like those in retail and quick revenue increases to state and local governments).
I think quick action by Obama and Congress saved the U.S. auto industry; gave investors some confidence that we wouldn’t have a repeat of the banking crisis; and set the country on the path to recovery.
While I know some people’s health insurance costs were negatively affected by the Affordable Care Act, the result still is that millions of people were able to have health insurance for the first time; others saw their premiums drop quite a bit; and the industry feels that after some major price adjustments at the end of 2016, costs were about to even out if the program continued.
Most of us on the left agree, I think, that the additional costs we all may pay immediately as a result of greater environmental regulation are worth saving lives; protecting wildlife; preventing, or at least forestalling, further human-caused climate change; and more. Regulations can be onerous and daunting, but cannot we agree that if they save lives they benefit us all?
I really like the idea of keeping coal dust out of waterways. Sorry if some coal companies feel it’s a burden: maybe they could hire some people to help keep our rivers clean. But, oh yeah, we don’t have to worry about that regulation any more. It just got revoked.
As far as international events: I don’t agree with everything President Obama did — and I think you can find arguments on both sides for greater or less intervention in Syria; use of drones as execution devices; pulling out of Iraq when we did.
Nonetheless, I think the makings of a mess in the Middle East were sown well before Obama took office. And from what I’m reading, U.S. allies have made major inroads against ISIS. As a result of ISIS losing control of land, they are also losing revenue, which should have a great cyclical effect on that organization’s ability to continue its fight.
And I don’t for a second believe that President Obama exacerbated racial problems or by his actions made the U.S. a more divided nation. He rarely brought up the issue (to much criticism from some Black politicians), and certainly never acted angry, offended or tried to induce guilt in any way around issues of race.
If racism increased during his tenure, it was not because he incited it. He and his whole family behaved with almost unparalleled dignity and decorum during his eight years in office, and we could all do well to emulate his thoughtful, respectful attitude toward all people and all issues.
And if the country is more divided now than it was 10 years ago, can we lay any blame on the Congressional Republicans who announced immediately that their purpose in Congress was to prevent the new president from accomplishing anything? What kind of leadership is that?
CURRENT THEORY NUMBER TWO: The world can be divided into people who believe some things are no-brainers and those who don’t believe there is such a thing as a no-brainer.
For example, I just was reading a FB argument on Current Theory Number One, resulting from the president’s statement that he was left a mess.
Someone had posted a list of economic indicators in which, by and large, the U.S. was doing better than it had been in 2009. As is the way of good journalism, it was filled with caveats and explanations, because nothing is simple.
One of the anti-liberal people in this discussion, who is usually relatively thoughtful, wrote, “Well, what about all those “buts”?
He wanted (or purported to want) a clear cut, all-or-nothing, “better or worse.”
It will never, ever happen that way.
Yeah, the world isn’t 100 percent better in every way than it was in 2009. Everything is complicated. Every action has unintended consequences. The president has to deal with a Congress which tried to stalemate him. Things take time. Many, many factors affect any system, be it economic, social or military.
The U.S. economy doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Europe was experiencing great economic uncertainty during this period which may have been affected by the U.S. recession, but which was lengthened and exaggerated by troubles within the E.U.
You can’t just remove environmental regulations and expect the coal industry to come back — unless you somehow convince or coerce the rest of the energy industry to stop pulling natural gas out of the ground and convince mine operators to go back to more labor-intensive ways of extracting coal.
Does anybody really know what to do in the Middle East? More bombing? Less bombing? Support Assad? Take out Assad? And what the heck are we doing in Yemen?
If anybody really had an idea to thwart Putin; ensure Europe the energy and economic security it needs; solve ethnic problems, etc., somebody would be coming up with a coherent strategy. No such strategies came through in the Republican debates. Democrats are as divided as Republicans.
“Obvious solutions” to domestic problems like requiring drug tests for food stamp eligibility; locking people up for non-violent crimes; etc., often don’t work. I’m sure there are as many “no-brainer” examples on the left, too.
So let me say that I’m totally in the “There’s no such thing as a no-brainer” camp.
Despite the current president’s approach (raise tariffs; keep out immigrants; send people without papers back home; repeal the Affordable Care Act) there are no simple, obvious solutions. People who vote for any candidate based on that hope are going to be disappointed and frustrated.
CURRENT SPECULATIVE ASIDE: OK, this is totally intuitive, but I’m going to say it (and maybe somebody will set me straight. This addresses criticisms that job growth was too slow during the last eight years.
But here’s what this looks like to me:
If the stock market increased steadily over the second half of the Obama administration, that meant businesses were doing well, right?
So, they weren’t suffering under Obama, right?
So, if they weren’t hiring, it wasn’t because they couldn’t afford it, but rather because they preferred to keep their stock prices really high rather than re-investing in their operations, right. That’s my current theory number two.
I know other things come into play: automation requiring fewer people; the changing nature of businesses, etc., but these, too, are out of the hands of the government.
And unemployment has been under 5 percent, which is really good, right?
So what’s the complaint?
I would love it if people would let me know their reactions to this. There’s a comment section on this blog, for those who would prefer to keep it all off Facebook.
clairecommunicationsdotnet 
First of all I am really impressed by how often you use semicolons. There are more semicolons in your post than I’ve used in my entire life. Second, I think your current theories make sense but you are trying, as we elite intellectuals tend to do, apply rationality to the election. I believe it was primarily emotional, and that Trump made a lot of people feel like he cared about them, that he was on their side. Voting for him was a way of showing defiance to the powers that be. And, many many people had a negative emotional reaction to Hillary and felt she was phony. (I voted for her in the primary and the general and gave money to her campaign, but I have never had a positive emotional reaction to her.)
LikeLike
Semicolons are us!
I know that a lot of it is irrational, and yes, unfortunately, many people didn’t warm up to Mrs. Clinton (I love her, though).
I am just always struck how differently we see the world. Over the years, I have read people chastising Obama for blaming stuff on George W., when it’s undeniable that the economy in 2008 was in the worst shame it had been since the Depression. I totally get that there are underlying fears, needs, etc., but I always wonder how it’s possible to disregard obvious facts.
LikeLike
Hey, Claire, nicely written. I am having a hard time getting my head around the rights use of the”now we’re going to fix this country” scenario. We are definitely in better shape than 2008. Inherited a mess?!!! The only people who believe that are the people who buy his whole lie of bull. I’ve never considered myself a Democrat or a Republican, I vote for the person and I have looked on in horror at the circus sideshow that this election turned out to be. I have been trying not to post too much political stuff, mostly because the stuff I would post doesn’t seem to register on the people for whom it would do the most good. I truly fear for democracy. Thanks for listening to my rant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice read Claire.
A few things: The current administrations quest to make coal a viable energy source is only the result of an ego that does not let him realize that coal is not even preferred by the power industry. I live across the road from a 100year old (and being dismantled) coal power plant. They have already moved on (to solar, natural gas and wind energy) I just wish the minority-elect president will get over himself and push alternate green energy. He is suggesting we revive the typewriter.
I agree that Obama was handed a steaming pile of crap when he took office in 2008 and he did a good job with the tools he had. I do not agree with Obama’s global perspective, however, he did get most all of our troops out of the middle east like he said he would. I would have liked a stronger message in the Syrian debacle and I think that it could be the turning-point in validating Russian aggression (in Putin’s eyes).
I believe that Obama should have taken advantage of his democratic majority in his first years of office. I feel he “tucked-tail” and was not the assertive and smart president we know he is capable of when the republicans became a majority. Was he butt hurt that his voice was not being heard? Get over it! I think he should have made a stance against the DAPL. He was basically invisible and I will always remember that as a mistake.
We live in unique times when facts take a back-seat to emotions. If the orange bigot will be known for anything it will be for unifying the opposition. We need to remain focused and stop the bickering. United, we will defeat this blight in 2018!
LikeLike
Bring back the typewriter. And the abacus, while we’re at it. Great analogy.
LikeLike
Claire, thanks for taking the time to do this. I do hope some readers will bring reasonable counterpoints to the discussion. It won’t be me; I agree with what you’ve written. (I had to get in a semicolon!)
I will just add a comment on your Current Theory Number Two. The big issues we face (the economy, immigration, jobs, health care delivery, the environment, etc.) are NOT “no-brainers” and don’t have simple black and white solutions. I really think most people with any reasonable amount of real life experience would, at some level, agree. What I hadn’t thought about before is how this played out in the election. Much of Trump’s campaign spiel seemed to be that there ARE simple, clear cut solutions to these issues, and that he was/is the one to make them happen. (Build a wall, Mexico will pay for it; Replace Obamacare; Bring back high paying jobs; Deregulate….) There is never any substance or explanation or nuance in Trump’s “solutions”. It was just these simple answers that many voters so badly wanted to hear and apparently were willing to believe. Maybe Trump was either smart enough or lucky enough to realize that and play it all the way the the White House. By the way, I think there is another, much smaller, segment of Trump supporters that DON’T for a second buy the “no-brainer” approach. These are the billionaires who, like Trump, are in it for the money and power. But maybe what got Trump elected was millions of voters wanting to believe Trump cares about them, has the simple solutions, and that he can and will make them happen and everything will be fine. Now whether everything would be “fine” with a new Great Wall, deregulation, alternative facts instead of alternative energy, etc., etc. is another matter. But I’m just still trying to figure out how in the hell Trump got elected.
LikeLike
Mark, did you ever read a book called, “Entertaining Ourselves to Death?” It was written before everybody got news from the Internet, but I think it’s still relevant. He talks about the way information and thoughts were traded in the past, that the Lincoln/Douglas debates lasted something like six hours, and that a primary form of entertainment was to attend long lectures. People enjoyed learning about the issues and were willing to take the time to understand.
With the advent of television, everything got compacted, until people’s primary way of getting information was through short news segments or 30 second political ads. I think it’s valid to say that the TV medium reduced our social ability to discuss anything in any depth.
We seem to be failing in nuance, analysis and thoughtfulness.
I would like to say that it’s not just a failing on the right. I felt that a lot of the discussion from the left before Clinton won the nomination was just as bad. I thought the claim “She voted for the war in Iraq” was unfair, for complicated reasons. (John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it” was really a funky explanation, but given the circumstances, it makes absolute sense.”
I also thought a lot of charges against her were glib, oversimplified and inaccurate.
Similarly, I felt that Sanders put forth a bunch of stuff that really sounded good ($15 minimum wage; free college; etc.) without having any details about how any of that would happen, even if there had been a Democratic Congress. I feel like that’s as “no brainer speak” as “build a wall” or “repeal Obamacare and replace it with something really great.” I feel that way about proposed bills in Oregon saying, “Close down coal plants and don’t use any fossil fuels to replace them.) (OK, I admit to a professional affinity for natural gas, but c’mon, what’s the possibility we can pull that off unless we all unplug our big screen tvs and our computers?)
OK, thanks for engaging me in this rant! Always great to hear what you have to say.
LikeLike
I have not read that…it does sound interesting. While TV has changed the way we get information, and taken a lot of dialog out of the picture, it’s also interesting how much the TV medium itself has changed with the addition of “anything goes” cable. I agree it impacted this last election in a big way. I also agree both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton took some unfair and untruthful hits from the media that probably cost them both the election.
As far as Sanders vs Clinton, I was a Bernie supporter. I still am. But in retrospect I think he may be more effective in the Senate than the White House. I had no problem supporting Hillary when she won the nomination. She is extremely qualified, and she is pragmatic enough to be effective.
LikeLike
I think most people want to be around other people who add value to the world in what ever position in society they occupy. In my view Mrs. Clinton has a decades long public perception of extracting value from any issue or person she comes in contact with. The election was just an example of that trite phrase “perception is reality”.
LikeLike