Election Aftermath

 They're still counting the votes, and although it's looking like it'll be Biden we can't really say for sure.

I wanted to write something... well. I suppose it feeds into the Trump supporter post that I haven't gotten around to writing. Yet. And as usual I'll start with something completely unrelated.

Many doctors complain about how patients will google their symptoms and come to the office believing they have whatever they found on the internet. And I get that... I get how frustrating it can be when you've gone to school and learned all this amazing stuff about the human body, and then someone comes in and believes they have cancer because of a five minute internet search. Especially when that patient is wrong, and refuses to hear it.

At the same time, doctors aren't always right. Nobody knows what you're feeling, and nobody knows your health like you do. There are horror stories of doctors dismissing women's pain (because of menstrual cramps, say) when they really had appendicitis. There are studies that show doctors dismiss black women when they say they are in pain, and thus fail to treat them for deadly diseases. 

You are responsible for your own health, the doctors aren't always right, and if your doctor isn't taking you seriously and helping you heal then find another.

I used doctor-patient relationships in my example here, but is it any surprise at all that what I'm really talking about is expertise? 

The doctor has expertise, and there's a time and place for it. But the doctor is not always right, either. We should draw on that expertise and use it, but we shouldn't accept it without question. Especially not when what they're saying doesn't seem to fit our symptoms/situation.

I have said before that I consider myself independent, and the partisan attitude towards expertise captures some of why. 

On the one hand, I have a master's degree (two, really) and so I have a certain amount of expertise. I can be a bit of a data wonk, though I don't claim to be truly expert at looking at the raw data in scientific studies and picking out statistical errors. Still, I know more than most. 

At the same time, I served in the military, and I have seen firsthand that we have brilliant people who have never gone to college. I also know that I went to a public university, and that there are Ivy League elitists who probably wouldn't take my own opinions as seriously... which I find rather offensive and think reflects a great deal more on them (the snobby a-holes who are building their own little privileged bubble because they don't listen to anyone who's experience is different than theirs) than it does on me.

There are times when the 'experts' are wrong, and we shouldn't just blindly accept what they say. That goes for the Iraq War, and it goes for news journalists too. 

I get why people stopped trusting the mainstream media. I just don't know why the hell that translates into trusting Fox News, or other sources that aren't honestly any better. Really, it's better to have multiple sources of news so that the biases and spin become more obvious and you can sort of pick them out. People stopped trusting mainstream media, and it seems to have made them vulnerable for all sorts of crackpot conspiracy theories. 

I don't even necessarily like the mainstream media, but I absolutely hate the impasse we have reached in our political discussions today. That is, anything that doesn't support our confirmation biases is dismissed out of hand as 'not credible'. There's no point in doing any sort of research or making any sort of arguments, because we don't share any sort of common understanding of what is considered a reliable or credible source. (And, tbf, it does go both ways... I know a heckuva lot more about economics, for example, then some of my facebook friends and I can see a ton of problems with that article they just posted... but what's the point of trying to explain it all? Honestly if they'd wanted the truth they could easily have found it out themselves. Instead they choose to share articles that just reinforce their biases.)

I'm sure this makes me sound better than I am... I have my own biases, of course. There have been times I've seen a point made and said "that can't be right". But then I research it, and find out that it's more accurate than I thought. I try to pay attention to when I resist accepting something, since it's a sure sign that my own confirmation bias is at work. Which oddly enough is why I'm more confident in the opinions I do form.

For example, I know that I did not start out despising Trump (though I still thought he was worse than Hillary Clinton. And I don't think highly of her, so that's saying something). I thought the protests around his inauguration were premature and I wanted to see how he did at governing. But all I had to do was dig a little bit into any one of the many stories around him - the publicity stunt he did with Carrier that didn't save any real jobs. Things he said and did. 

He lies. He lies all the time. He lies so much that it's not worth the effort of fact checking any more, it's better to just assume he's lying from the moment he opens his mouth.

And he's always doing shady stuff. He doesn't separate out his personal business from the political from his role as a public servant. The Hatch Act? A wonky thing most Americans aren't even aware of, but an important symbol of this separation. Ignored... Hardly worth the paper it was written on.

Rule of law? Under this administration it's a joke.

And yet far too many of my fellow Americans have built up this idea of Donald Trump that has absolutely no relation to reality. My step-brother shared a meme on facebook where Trump was painted like a medieval Knight Templar, in armor and with a giant red cross. 

They honestly seem to think he's some sort of crusader for justice... I have no words. I don't even know where to start. 

What's interesting, though, is how that actually limits Trump. In a way.

That is, his supporters have built up this image of him... and they dismiss the things that don't match their image. It's sort of like how some of the English monarchists claimed they were doing things in the king's name, even when it went against what the king actually said he wanted. 

I think about that, with regards to when Trump tried to get them to stop counting votes this morning. Because his supporters for the most part just blinked and moved on. Just another wild and crazy thing Trump said, he can't be serious. Can't really mean it. Must be joking. Cue an uncomfortable laugh and silence, as the states continue to count their votes and everyone just sort of pretends it didn't happen. (Except, ofc, for his more... rabid supporters. There's a few here and there trying to pretend that the votes shouldn't be counted, and I'm sure Trump will lead with claims of cheating and there might be some real problems because of it. However, it's up to the state leadership - and state governors - to run their elections and certify the results and the counting doesn't stop just because Trump wants it to.)

This highlights something I've said before, about the relationship between the leader and the led. About how you can't lead people where they aren't willing to follow. 

Trump can say that the counting should stop all he wants, but people aren't following his lead on it. (Again, aside from some of his more rabid supporters who - thank god - are not in a position to enforce it.) 

If this was like in 2000, if the states in question are close enough we might see a recount and questions about that might - might - get sent to the judicial system for a decision. 

We waited weeks to find out whether Gore or Bush would be president. It's not unreasonable for the same to happen here... but only if it's close enough to demand a recount, or if there's some other reason to do so. 

A reason that has more evidence then simply the president's say-so.

I did have to throw in that caveat about 'if this was like in 2000', because there seems to be an underlying threat hanging over our heads that wasn't there in 2000. There's a real fear that people will turn violent if they don't get the results they want...

Some of the polls asked about that, and it seems most people are willing to abide by whatever results the process finds. But given what Trump has already said and done, I'm sure he'll be saying things to stir the pot. 

That's enough for now, though. I still want to delve a little bit deeper into Trump supporters, just not sure when.