Current Events, and I Can't Think of a Good Title

 I am not sure where to start. I had two or three major ideas for posts yesterday, but a) I've slept since then and b) they don't seem as high a priority as the current situation. (I'm sure the general themes will come up again later, and if it's convenient I may write something then.)

As for the current situation... there's so many different threads to follow. There's Twitter banning Trump (and almost all the other social media sites doing the same.) It's made social media a little surreal right now. We're still dealing with the aftermath of Wednesday, and Trump and his allies are already sending messages that they're going to try again some time before Biden's inauguration. There's the various reactions of my own personal network. My friends and family.

Oh! And I wanted to post something about how and why so many of us learned to distrust the MSM! 

That does seem to be one of the underlying factors. ('5 Why' analysis, right? People wouldn't be listening to these inaccurate sources if they hadn't decided not to trust the MSM and start 'doing their own research'. Which is a whole other topic.)

But I think I want to start with something I brought up yesterday. The differing opinions on the following statements:

Discrimination against whites is as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.

Things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country

Immigrants get more than their fair share of government resources

People on welfare often have it better than those who work for a living

Speaking English is “essential for being a true American,” 

African-Americans “need to stop using racism as an excuse.”

Like I said yesterday, I disagree with pretty much every single one of these. I don't think that laying out all the reasons why, all the facts and statistics, will help though. Because this is more about emotion than it is about facts.

It's fear, and anger. It's not just the obvious ones either (fear of being discriminated against, anger at the group they think is causing so much pressure to change.) There's also fear of losing 'the Protestant work ethic'. Fear - and as I type this it becomes more clear. I can even hear my more conservative relatives complaining about policies that discourage personal responsibility - fear of losing a way of life.

And anger at all the various forces pressuring them to change. This doesn't mean there's not a hefty dose of racism involved. 

It's more like this, though.

Imagine you're the wife in a relationship, and your husband (or wife) has a tendency to eat a bowl of cereal in the night, and leave the dishes out on the table. Every morning you wake up to find a bowl sitting there with dried out cereal stuck to the sides.

It's a minor thing. Not worth raising a fuss over. So you say nothing, try to get past it. It'd sound ridiculous to fight over a dirty dish, right?

It starts as a tiny irritation, but every day it builds. So one day you decide to say something.

Now, this is your truth. It's not a happy truth, and it's not a truth that your spouse will probably like hearing. But you've already tried ignoring it, already told yourself that it's no big deal... and it's not going away. When you finally decide to speak, one of two things is likely to happen. (Okay, there's probably more... but I'm keeping it simple.)

She or he (I'm going to use 'he' so I don't have to keep typing that) may feel a little upset, but also take your concern seriously and promise... not that he would always wash the bowl. Maybe that he'd rinse it out,  or leave it to soak, or whatever. 

That sort of negotiation is highly dependent on the people involved and not something you can say should be resolved any particular way. The important part was that you spoke up about something that bothered you, they heard it and responded with their own truth, and you try to work out a solution you can live with.  (He might say 'I'm sorry, I'm forgetful. I can't guarantee I'll remember. But every time I forget just remind me that I forgot and I'll do X.) 

It's not about one person or another getting their way, it's about respecting each other's wants and needs and trying to find a way to meet it without compromising your own. 

Alternatively -

He gets upset that she's angry with him, gets defensive, goes on the attack with something completely unrelated to the dirty dishes, and stubbornly refuses to do One. Thing. Different.

You see the problem here? Now it's no longer about the dishes. Now it's about control, and shame on you for trying to control him. That's just the way he is, and if you love him you'll have to accept that. 

Get over it.

Let it go.

Don't attack me. Don't make me try to change. Don't make me respect your wants and needs, or listen to you, or try to make you happy.

(That's not actually being said ofc, and is probably not even a conscious thought. But I hope you can see why it might be subtext.)

Okay, so what was the point of all that?

It's just something I noticed with all the BLM protests. They expressed a concern. They had a grievance. They spoke their truth. 

And there are some police departments who have taken those concerns seriously, and tried to address them. I have come across an article or two talking about one particular police chief's efforts to combat racism in the force. Another discussing how body cameras have actually helped them police more effectively. It allowed them to show the family of the deceased what really happened, answered their questions, and proved that the police were acting in the line of duty.

Unfortunately, such responses have been few and far between. 

The vast majority of them, like the second cereal scenario, got defensive and angry. Started talking about how 'Blue Lives Matter', and that we need to support the police. Angrily blamed the black communities for all the divisiveness.

Don't make them try to change. Don't make us listen to black people. Why, if we do that we'll have anarchy in the streets!

And ofc the police are angry, and in some places even stopped doing their jobs, and crime went up. That's what you get when you act so unreasonable. 

Now it's not about black lives, now it's about control. It's about reasserting the current state of affairs, and suppressing any attempt to make it different.

I don't really know the ins and outs of every single time a black man or woman died in the last decade. I don't know all the evidence, I don't feel comfortable judging the use of force. 

But I can and do judge the police for refusing to take these concerns seriously. "Liberty and justice for all" was in the Pledge of Allegiance. I have been dismayed to discover that far too many Americans don't actually support it.

Updated to add: The family argument was just over some dirty dishes. BLM is about black people dying. But God forbid someone take a knee to peacefully protest. 

God, People in DC are Deluded

Or in denial. Or wishful thinking.

I was trying to think about how to make my point and a) haven't yet and b) am on the phone, which is never the greatest for this.

But I still am furious about what happened yesterday. It's not, like, ready to go out and punch things anger. But, like... Idk. A core of burning fury that hasn't really died down. I still think he needs to go. Impeachment or the 25th Amendment, I don't care. He's proven over and over again a number of things. That no matter how many times he gets pressured into giving a speech that sounds 'normal', he never means it and always reneges. Sometimes the very same day.

That he repeatedly does things 'normal' people don't. Like the bold faced lying. If you expect him to act like most people, you will be disappointed (like Susan Collins thinking impeachment would chasten him).

The dude is never chastened. He might lick his wounds a bit, but then he doubles down and comes out swinging. We've had four years of this, it should be expected by now. 

But the stuff I was mulling over... 

Well.  I remember I was a young lieutenant, in charge of my very first platoon. And one of my NCOs was... Uh. Maybe kinda hazing the newbie butterbar? It's been almost twenty years, so I forgot the details. Some of it was typical goofy stuff like taking your cap if it was, left unattended. (this was before the beret) and turning your rank sideways. And like, initially it's not a big deal. I can take a joke, no harm done, sure.

Eventually I decided I needed to address it, though. And pulled him into my office to politely yet firmly tell him to knock it off. That it didn't matter that I was new, I was his platoon leader. 

And he was almost, like... Proud of me for calling him on his BS. Said a lot of junior officers never did. 

What I took from that is that some people really won't respect you until you pull them up short. 

But... Not everyone. I would even say most don't think like that. It's just that a good leader adjusts their leadership style to the people you're dealing with, and it's important to know who is which.

Like with micromanaging. Some people may be new, and/or insecure, and they'll want you to be around and easily available. Others (often the ones with more experience) may resent you if you hover too closely. It seems like you don't trust them to do their job. You're micromanaging, and if you're spending that much time watching them do their job then who is doing yours? (I might expand on what 'your job' entails. Some other time).

Anyways. Sometimes tit for tat works, and you can deescalate things by giving a little. The other side may not want a confrontation in the first place, and is happy to have an out. 

Other times? You need to stand fast and firm, be quite clear about where the line is drawn, and prove you're willing to bring the hammer of God down if they cross it. (One of my undergrad classes raised the question of whether Saddam would have invaded Kuwait if we'd sent a clear signal that we weren't okay with it).

Trump, in case you haven't been paying attention, is much more the latter. Any hint of weakness, any waffling, is a sign of encouragement. It means he can continue to get away with shit. (Would Senator Collins care to comment?)

The frustrating part of the last four years has been watching, over and over and over again, as our leadership and institutions utterly fail to do so. 

Impeachment? You all know what happened there.

As I've said before. He is angry, petty, and vindictive. He needs to be removed from office before he can do further damage. 

I know there are only a couple of weeks left in his term, but he has repeatedly shown that he won't stop unless someone makes him. And I've seen no sign of anyone honestly doing that. 

Post-Election Thoughts

 I feel I need to write a bit more about my previous post.

It's just... complicated. As is almost anything important, I suppose.

If it were anyone other than the sitting president, I think a case could clearly be made for subversion of authority if not outright sedition. But... he is the president. Even aside from whether a president is capable of sedition (I hinted at that problem before, when I asked who he was asking people to rise up against) there's a few problems with our current situation. Namely the difference between absolute immunity and quality immunity from legal action for our elected officals. You remember me saying that we can only choose the consequences? There are some valid reasons to push for immunity. We don't want our leaders having to worry about getting sued for every little thing, or have political battles become even more about who can pay for litigation rather than who can convince the most Americans to vote for their cause. At the same time, nobody should be above the law. 

Nobody. 

For that reason alone, I lean against absolute immunity, but I'll admit it opens the doors to at least some abuse. Both have consequences (i.e. the risk of massive litigation against a sitting president, vs the risk that a sitting president will act as though he or she is above the law).

I think you can mitigate against the former... restrict what qualifies so that it doesn't interfere with what's required to do the job. Exactly where that line is drawn is the sort of thing that gets hashed out over the years.

I don't know exactly where we are, legally speaking, in how this is interpreted and what it means for legal action against Trump, that's the sort of thing you need lawyers for. (is it a capital crime? Doesn't the government have to bring suit for capital crime? I can't see our current justice system doing that. And, again, it opens the doors for future politicians to abuse the option. Sort of like how even though Richard Nixon seemed appropriate for impeachment, Republicans then used the same process against Bill Clinton in a move that was widely seen as inappropriate for the crime... which then increased some of the cynicism and willingness to overlook the character of a candidate, but I digress.)

We do have impeachment... but that's already been tried. And failed. And there's no reason to believe we'll have anything other more ugly partisan division if we tried it again.

Which means part of the reason people are reluctant to address this is because it's hard to say what or how we can do pretty much anything.

Oh, if all the states can get together and file some stupid electoral lawsuit I suppose the same can be done in reverse. And I'm sure there's libel laws and other types of things that can be done to make things painful. (Though, again as I noted in a previous post, opening that door could be a bad idea. I'm not sure I'd want to deal with the consequences of going that route. Btw... another very real problem with what Trump and his supporters are doing right now is that the result they're pushing for would throw out millions of legitimate votes. Again, not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that's why various judges have said they didn't have standing. Trying to say that ignoring the wishes of millions of legitimate voters is required to make up for whatever fraud they think happened destroys the very notion of a social contract, or democracy. Some lone idiot deciding to vote by mail-in ballot and go in person, or to vote for their dead grandfather as well as themselves - that's not enough to ignore the votes of millions.)

Anyways.... so what do we do?

I'm not exactly a fan of the idea, but in a weird way ignoring it sometimes works in our favor. That is, some of Trump's own supporters don't pay attention and/or dismiss his attempts to stir up trouble as political theater, which means they're not exactly rising up on his behalf. If enough of them ignore it, then maybe we can get through to Biden's presidency without things getting ugly. (I have no idea how many people are just grumbling, but not planning to do anything... and how many seriously intend to cause trouble.)

Not drawing attention, not provoking, not making a fuss... sometimes seems like a safe way to survive until Trump is finally removed from power.

But there will be consequences to that, just as there's consequences for going in the other direction. One of which is that Trump and his supporters keep upping the ante. They keep coming up with these insane ideas that I definitely wouldn't have predicted, and then somehow get enough people on board to go through with them. It is, quite frankly, nuts.

I am exceedingly concerned about what I see going on right now because it's not just Trump. It's not just one person taking a sledgehammer to our democracy. It's all the people standing around enabling him. Guarding him. Taking a turn with the sledgehammer themselves. I have absolutely no idea if anyone is being blackmailed, or if it's fear of getting on Trump's bad side, or what...

Though it's exactly that sort of behavior that makes me think Libertarians aren't worthy of the name. (How much liberty do you think you're going to have from someone who bullies anyone who stands up to him, punishes anyone who disagrees with him, and will go to such lengths to win? If you try, you'll probably end up like a few of those Russian oligarchs Putin dealt with.)

Something needs to be done, but I see few people with the capability and fortitude to do anything about it. Biden is probably handling it best by biding his time, keeping calm, and continuing to work on transitioning.

Maybe whatever we do has to be done once Biden takes office (and I'm not entirely sure yet what 'it' will be. I might ponder that and write more some other time) but something has to be done. We need to make sure that we never, ever, ever get this close to subverting the will of the people again.

The Uncomfortable Bits

 There's part of the current situation I've sort of been glossing over, and I want to pull it out and look at it a bit more clearly.

Please talk about 'damage to our democracy', but they don't go into a lot of detail. Partly because, well...

It's like talking about structural damage to a bridge. You can see the cracks, you can see them getting bigger... You know that somebody needs to fix the damage... 

but you don't really know when or how the bridge is going to break. It might last another ten years, or break tomorrow. 

You also don't know what sort of load it will have to bear. It could be all the traffic is fairly light. Moderate. And the bridge can last a while longer.  Or you might get a heavy convoy adding stress after stress.

In one sense, there's always people muttering about 'damage', and nothing seems to happen. Right? The bridge is still standing, cars and trucks are still driving over it. Study after study has shown people distrust government more than ever. I don't know if you can say that it started with Vietnam, but there's a definite downward trend since that time.

It's been there my entire life, tbh. I don't know if the way people stopped caring about character is one of the results of that trend or not, but I've hated that ever since I heard of it. "All politicians lie. Character doesn't matter, I'll just vote for whoever supports the policies I want." (I think I heard this at least once in association with the Clintons, because regardless of whether it was impeachable or not Bill Clinton did lie. Ofc, the Republicans trying to impeach him were rather guilty of the same sins, so in some ways the whole fiasco is an indictment of the entire Washington establishment.)

I'm not writing this to get into why character matters though. I'm writing because surveys show a large portion of our nation has lost faith in the electoral process. They think the votes were rigged. It's a rather large crack, though as with structural damage to a bridge it's hard to say when or how the effects will be felt.

But there's more to it than that. People mutter about 'damage to our system', and complain about all the frivolous lawsuits that keep getting thrown out of court, but the people who have bought into this idea that the election was stolen don't care about that. They want something to restore their trust in the system, they want 'justice'... and even though they are mostly looking for evidence to support the conclusions they've already made (as opposed to honestly and openly evaluating the evidence), it needs to be addressed because that's where the damage was done.

I made the tongue-in-cheek comment about redoing the election because even though Trump and his enablers don't really deserve the chance (and there's always the fear that they'd somehow manage to win, and then what?) because that's the sort of thing that would restore trust and fix the damage. Make it all transparent, obvious. Invite them to be pollwatchers, make them go through the training and learn how elections really work - because a lot of these conspiracies took hold because they just really didn't know. They didn't realize most of the people running elections are volunteers from their own community, and instead imagine some sort of shadowy network of party hacks. 

I don't honestly think we should redo the election, mostly because of the tremendous amount of problems that would create (shouldn't all the elections be affected, in which case we'd have to question who won all the other local, state, and federal elections. Then there's the problem of who would be in charge while we did it, how much time it would take - and oh, btw, there's still this damned pandemic going on and it's escalating fast.)

But we all know that, to be honest. The part that I sort of keep pushing aside because dwelling on it raises uncomfortable questions is this -

The damage we're dealing with now isn't some sort of accident. 

It's not the normal wear and tear on a bridge. It's not even that an unusually heavy convoy came through and put extra stress on the structure (one could argue that this metaphor could be used for something like the pandemic.)

This is the sort of damage most of our politicians have spent a couple of centuries avoiding. Yes, there are liberals who still mutter about the election in 2000. And in 2016. 

But leaders can not say the things the average person can. To go back to my time in the military - if I, as an officer, could not say some of the things my enlisted soldiers said. 

Why? Because it's different when someone in the chain of command says it. Because enlisted soldiers just blowing off steam are rarely in a position to do something about it... but when their commanding officer joins in, then it adds legitimacy to their complaints and raises the spectre of mutiny. 

It sucks, sometimes. Having to be careful of what you say. Having to make it sound like you agree with or support the chain of command even when you don't. (And ultimately if that happens too often you will probably leave... because who wants to work for people like that?) But it's not just something you do because you're a bootlicker, or playing the game, or whatever...

At the most extreme, the end of the road if you go down that path, you can have a military (and nation) fall apart right when they need to work together the most. I don't like you, so I'm going to take my platoon and run off to support the other side. That battalion commander disagrees with your order, so he'll leave the front line open. 

I generally try to encourage people to speak out, and for the system to listen and respond... because most of the time groupthink and obedience are more of a problem than the reverse. That's dependent on the situation, and there are definitely times and situations where coming together and supporting the chain of command is more important than our disagreements. (Judging how important an issue is, how willing the chain of command is to listen and respond, and what the consequences of letting that disagreement break the organization are all part of what you have to consider when trying to decide how to deal with whatever it is.)

There is a reason that we expect duly elected public officials to condemn violence, regardless of whether their politics align with the groups involved. (We expect liberal politicians to condemn antifa violence, and conservative politicians to condemn maga violence. As leaders of their factions, and as public servants, they shouldn't be encouraging people to act in ways that undermine the system.)

And here's the part people shy away from.

Trump - in his entire time in office - has never done that sort of thing. Never condemned the violence done by those he agrees with (those 'very fine people.'). 

People act like it's always some sort of gotcha thing when the mainstream media asks him about it, and there are definitely elements of political theater involved...

But it's extremely problematic that the leader of our nation, the President of the United States - speaking with all the symbols of his office - says these things.

It's one thing for some random person on twitter to complain that the election was stolen.

It's something entirely different for the President of the United States to spend 45 minutes giving the 'most important speech' of his career, in which he alleges (without any real evidence) a massive attempt to steal the election.

This isn't the usual wear and tear on the infrastructure supporting our system. This isn't even an unusually heavy load, like a pandemic.

It's deliberate. It's targeted. It's as though someone took a sledgehammer and slammed it into the bridge supports.

And we all look away. We've learned that it's useless to say anything. His supporters are either cynical and power hungry enough to ignore it, or they honestly believe (despite all the evidence) Trump... and they think Biden is the one taking a sledgehammer to our democracy. 

We have learned over the past four years that every time Trump says some over-the-top, outrageous thing... his supporters don't care. They either don't actually pay attention (possible - many people don't. These days a lot of people get their news from Facebook, after all), or they explain it away as 'just joking'. or they say it was misconstrued or taken out of context and people are unfairly villainizing him...

They sometimes even twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain away the things Trump has said.

But regardless of whether they listen or not, regardless of whether previous examples were exaggerated or unfair...

Right now we have a POTUS who is whacking away with a sledgehammer.

Background Thoughts for After Inauguration Day

 There's a lot of talk going around about post-inauguration. A lot of anger about what our country has come to. I have mostly avoided discussing it because I'd rather we get through to the inauguration first, but I have some rather complicated thoughts on this and felt the urge to write about it.

I suppose, first, I want to emphasize that the ultimate goal is to heal this country. It’s not about revenge, it’s not about punishment, and if it’s not done in a manner widely seen as just and fair it’s far more likely to deepen our divisions than it is to help. (This is part of why, for example, the lack of bipartisanship with Trump’s impeachment hurt.)

There’s a concern, though, that in the interests of healing we will overlook or ignore things that shouldn’t be – and that’s a fair point, too.

Hence why I said my thoughts were ‘rather complicated’.

Holding people accountable is hard, but important… and also needs to be done right. I think about my time as a people manager, for example. When someone isn’t performing well it’s my job to tell them that. To sit down and have the difficult conversation.

It’s not about being mean, or hurting them. (I’ve heard of managers who actually liked firing people, and I rather think they shouldn’t be in the job if it’s just so they can be on some sort of power trip)…

It’s because in the grand scheme of things, it hurts them and everyone around them. That is, if you don’t have those sorts of talks then all their coworkers see and know that someone on the team is slacking off… and it hurts morale to feel like someone is getting paid the same amount to do less.

It’s not good for the business, either… because you’re keeping someone on who isn’t doing the job well.

And it hurts the employee, because they generally know when they’re not doing well either… and don’t like feeling scared that they’ll lose their job, or that they have to hide and cover up their inability. Hell, most of them don’t like feeling incompetent or incapable in the first place.

So it’s essential to sit down and have those tough talks, but there are ways and ways of doing so. (It’s sort of the difference between saying ‘this is f***ed up’ and ‘you’re f***ed up’)

I kind of like Jim Collins’ point about having the right people in the right position on the bus. Sometimes someone isn’t in the right position. It doesn’t mean they’re bad, or untalented. It just means it’s not a good fit.

In an ideal world, well. I wish I had the resources to get them into a position that is the right fit. I don’t exactly like knowing the fear and uncertainty people go through when they have to find a new job, after all. I also don’t like knowing that healthcare benefits are tied to work, because people will try harder to stay in jobs they aren’t suited for out of fear that they’ll lose their health insurance. Especially if they or someone in their family has medical problems, like juvenile diabetes. Like… I shouldn’t have to even think about that, right? It should just be about whether or not they’re a good fit for the position. But that’s the way our system works right now.

Anyways. Giving feedback is important, and can actually be a good thing. It gives them the chance to do better, especially when you give them the resources (i.e. training, time, etc) to succeed.

The problem is that it should come from a place of care. Of wanting people to be their best self. And so giving feedback should be about helping them do so, and not about making anyone feel bad or trying to say they’re a failure.

I think, sometimes, of stuff I’ve heard about military leadership. There’s some conventional wisdom about how the officers who get promoted in peacetime do so for very different reasons, and with very different skillsets, from wartime promotions. That generally a war will make a peacetime army shake out some of the dead weight. (I forget the actual phrasing, and don’t feel like looking it up right now. You get the gist).

I’ve also heard similar comments about holding generals accountable. That they shouldn’t get ‘promoted up’ for failure, or protected when they make bad decisions. There are stories about some of the general officers relieved of command during World War II. Except that, iirc, those general officers had a chance to also learn from their mistakes. They were able to grow, and eventually get promoted again.

These things go hand in hand – if you want to hold people accountable, and want harsh punishments for failure… there also has to be a way for people to learn their lessons. To grow and succeed afterwards. If failure is considered a lifelong sentence to suffering, then people have incentives to try to hide their mistakes, shift blame, etc.

There’s more to it than that, even. Consider how nation/states said ‘never again’ after the Holocaust, and created resolutions against genocide…

But when it happened again, they didn’t really want to deal with it. And so we call it ‘ethnic cleansing’, or something else. If we use the word ‘genocide’ then we’re obligated to take action (or admit that we don’t actually live up to our stated principles), and the action we’re obligated to take is hard. Challenging.

It won’t be easy, may not be popular, and may lead to people dying for things that seem outside our lane. Like, what was the national interest of the United States in preventing Hutu from slaughtering Tutsi? If we admitted it was a genocide, we’d have to actual do something about it. Send troops probably. Some of which would die. It would cost money, and effort, and as things got hard people would start questioning why we were risking our own over something going on in an entirely different country. Better to just look the other way. Pretend we aren’t aware.

Looking the other way has consequences. Deciding to actually do something has consequences. It’s really about choosing which consequences you’re most willing to deal with.

People, being not all that logical honestly, tend to push these sorts of things to the back of their mind. It creates cognitive dissonance, and it comes with a certain amount of self-deception. You hear something bad going on, and it rather sucks… but then you forget about whatever is going on in some place way the hell over there, and focus on all the more immediate stuff going on in your life. (Ethiopia is currently at ‘stage 6’ of the ten stages of genocide, but after a brief moment of upset how many of us are going to just forget about that and worry more about our own problems. Coronavirus, the 2020 election… all of it seems a bit more important than stopping the genocide going on right now.)

I say this because I want people to think about what we actually want to have happen, rather than pushing it to the back of our minds and pretending the results were decided by forces outside our control. If you think doing something about it isn’t the right answer, say so. Make the arguments. Admit that this is something we’re not willing to do anything about. List out what the reasons are. Same for the other side – if you think we should get involved, explain why. Make your case. And discuss the ‘how’. Sanctions? Military force? UN Peacekeepers? What tools in the diplomatic arsenal are you willing to pull, and when/how/why will you use them?

And are you willing to accept the consequences of your choice?

Bringing this back to our current situation – Gabriel Sterling gave a hard-hitting speech that’s now gone viral, talking about death threats and how it ‘has to stop’. Some people focus far more on why he hadn’t said anything earlier, but I prefer to welcome and encourage anyone willing to speak out at a time like this. (Especially in stark contrast to members of Congress, who have been rather pathetic enablers.)

We have people taking out full ads demanding martial law. One of Trump’s attorney’s has called for violence against a former cybersecurity official for publicly rejecting Trump’s claims of voter fraud…

This is not normal, it’s not okay, and even though I’m far more focused on getting to Biden’s inauguration, the problems creating this sort of behavior won’t magically go away after 20 Jan.

There’s a reluctance to publicly admit what is going on, and I get it. I’m rather reluctant to state it myself. It either sounds overblown and melodramatic, or like admitting it will blow the fissures fracturing our nation wide open.

In some ways it’s easier to pretend that these guys are ‘just joking’ or ‘don’t really mean it’ or are doing it for ‘political theater’.

And yet there are a large number of people who sincerely think Biden is the one trying to steal the election, and that any sort of violence is justified. And, as Gabriel Sterling said (quite clearly and emphatically) someone is going to get hurt.

It’s one thing when fringe elements say stuff like this. You can easily ‘both sides’ the problem with a simple online search. But there is a vast difference between Joe Schmoe or Karen or Chad on twitter calling for people to take action…

And having POTUS say it. Or tweet it. Or do nothing to tell his followers that they need to settle down and cut it out.

There’s also something deeply wrong in encouraging mob justice. In forgetting due process. And for publicly arguing that various people should be locked up, or arrested, or threatened – because why? They oppose you? You have to have an actual crime, with actual evidence.

Our justice system has its flaws, and it’s not as blind as it’s supposed to be… but there is an entire history of law, and due process, and legislation, that are all meant to give us a trial and ensure a decision is made for reasons that are a bit more than simply ‘they oppose me.’ (Even though I’m not truly shocked by it, it still astounds me that anyone who calls themselves a ‘libertarian’ is willing to overlook these sorts of things. It’s okay when it’s your side doing it? Why are they ‘your side’ anyway? You honestly think someone who comes into power in this fashion is going to care about or protect your precious liberty? The cognitive dissonance of libertarian Trump supporters has got to be off the charts.)

I am not sure what the answer is here. These sorts of things shouldn’t be ignored or overlooked, but taking action will have consequences… (Trump is apparently trying to pardon his children ahead of time, which seems like a pretty big admission of guilt if you ask me. But it reminds me a bit of a problem I’ve discussed before with Pablo Escobar and some of our foreign policy stances on human rights. Namely that for people who don’t believe in principles, or justice… they tend to disbelieve actions taken against them for those reasons. Escobar didn’t believe the US was seriously after him for running a drug cartel, and seemed to think it was a cover for something else. Just like Russians never seem to accept that we really do care about human rights – really! Honestly! Even if we’re pretty haphazard about what catches our attention – and think it’s always a cover for something else. They don’t seem to believe that you can actually rule a diverse nation without keeping minorities and dissidents under an iron thumb. Idk, something like that. So anyways, Trump trying to pardon his children does sound like an admission of guilt… but someone said it was because he thought the following administration would use its power against him. And, like… on the one hand no. It’s not like that, nobody should be making stuff up in order to arrest him and his family. Uncover actual offenses, sure. And if he and his did engage in illegal behavior they really should worry… but not if they didn’t do anything illegal. On the other hand – it’s kind of hard to prove they’re wrong to worry if they did do something illegal, and we really do open up investigations. It’s all just… ugh.)

It would help if we had Republicans who did put country over party, if we could trust that there would be a bipartisan investigation into anything that needs investigating.

But that very trust is what seems so badly frayed right now.

It’s pretty bad… though I don’t know how much of that will translate into things we actually need to worry about. (i.e. people on the left have been muttering about stolen elections since 2000, a few people on the right doing the same is not necessarily the end of the world.  And protesting about it is their right as an American, so that’s still not going to be a problem. The ones willing to do more than that… well. That’s normally something for the FBI to worry about.)

Just saw a clip of Trump’s speech today, and that absolute fucker is actually standing up there arguing that black is white and up is down! The complete and utter nerve of him, to use his podium and say outright lies like that!

I’m still focused more on getting to inauguration day than anything else, but we have some serious problems here. Fixing them is going to take a LOT of work.

On Realism - Well, My Kind of Realism.

 I want to pontificate on a few things, though to be fair it's the sort of thing that should probably have proper studies done, so take it with a grain of salt.

I have heard people say that whoever spends the most money tends to win elections, but I wonder if that's mixing up correlation and causation. 

I say that, first of all because once I've made up my mind about a candidate it really doesn't matter how many ads I see or hear... it's not changing my mind. I also vaguely recall someone saying all the out-of-state money going to help with the Georgia run-offs may actually do more harm than good. (I did not get any details on how or why that may be, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.)

So if money is associated with winning elections, but ads and the like may have only a marginal effect, how are they related?

I think a case could be made that money is a marker of enthusiasm and support for a candidate, though I'd want to see studies done on that. And on whether the source of the money makes much of a difference. If I recall correctly, Obama raised a great deal of money because a lot of people donated small amounts. He was charismatic and people were enthusiastic. Would someone who raised the same amount of money, but mostly from large donors, show the same sort of results?  Does enthusiasm among the people who can afford the large donations matter the same as enthusiasm among the vast majority who can't? Idk, that's the sort of stuff you'd need to have studies for. 

I brought that up because I was thinking about realism. Or rather, about people who believe that underneath everything (sometimes very well hidden) decisions are made by the ones who can control brute force. The monopoly on violence that a state must hold, as just one example. This is the type of analysis that focuses mostly on hard power and military strength. 

But here's the thing - does a correlation between controlling brute force and being able to achieve your goals necessarily mean causation?

Bear with me here. There was an episode in the anime Samurai Champloo where our wanderers end up in a town that was mostly controlled by the mafia. There was an 'old school' mafia leader. A criminal, yes... but he also believed in taking care of his villagers. He was mostly supplanted by a newer, rougher, more violent leader. What was interesting, to me at least, was that at the end of the show one of the men switched loyalties. Even though the old leader seemed to lose everything (and iirc even died, so really it was switching loyalty to his son), during the course of the show his former follower realized that he valued the old ways more. That he didn't like this newer, more brutal leadership. 

That's what I get at, when I talk about how leaders can only lead where people want to follow. Where the relationship between leader and led is complicated, and not a one-way street. And it's also how we choose the world we want to live in.

It's easy to think that the hardass, the one willing to brutally put down any resistance, is the one who 'faces reality' and will win. And people will join up because they like being on the winning side, or they're afraid of being targeted, or for whatever reason. It's 'realism', and in that view the 'strongest' (which often means most brutal) wins.

But we are cooperative and social creatures, and the pack of wolves is often capable of taking down a larger opponent. Whoever draws the most people generally is more powerful.

And as Seth Godin says, "Through your actions as a leader, you attract a tribe that wants to follow you."

People want to follow people that give them a sense of purpose, an idea that they are helping create something better. Following power for power's sake is, in many ways, depressing. What does it matter whether this bully or that one takes over? What vision of a better future are they offering? 

If you think that only someone willing to be forceful can get things done, and you choose to follow that forceful leader... you create a world where that is exactly what happens. 

If you think things like justice, honesty, and truthfulness matter and you follow a leader who supports that... then those are the people with the largest pack of wolves and they have a better chance of making it happen. You create a world where it really does matter. 

You, me, all of our decisions together collectively make that happen.

It's way more complicated than that of course, and there are constraints that come when you decide these 'soft' things matter. Like expecting justice to be blind, and nobody should be above the rule of law.

I brought all that up because of all this talk about a 'coup' that's been going on ever since Election Day. I don't want to go into all the political and legal things going on right now, or all the court cases and failed evidence.

I wanted to discuss that so-called 'realist' way of analyzing a situation that looks at the crude basics - brute force. 

In most countries that would be the military, which is why whoever controls the military can often succeed at taking over a country. Also why history is littered with military dictatorships (and also dynasties that were overthrown by their military class. Like the Mamluks.) Luckily for us we have a very strong tradition of an apolitical military. One that swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and values our citizen soldiers as citizens as well as soldiers.

In other words, various figures in our military have consistently sent quiet signals over the last few months that they're not going to get involved in any sort of dispute. Like one over the election. (And so much of this has wound up in court, which makes it rather esoteric and hard to follow for those of us who aren't lawyers.)

If someone wanted to take over our country and couldn't use the military, there's not actually a lot of other choices left. You might get somewhere with the various militias (and although I know there's been some debate over whether they should be called that, but I'm thinking about how we called Muqtada al-Sadr's armed supporters a militia. They're not terrorists unless they're actually using terrorist tactics. A bunch of people carrying weapons and with some sort of structure for command and control is more like a militia. Unless you want to go with 'gang', I suppose.) 

Anyways, you might get somewhere with militias and armed supporters, but you'd still need some sort of coordination and communication. After all, what should they target? Where? Who? (and how would they pull anything off in time, considering the levers of state power that would be coming at them.)

Somewhat the same, but not, would be private security forces. I've heard people say that companies like Academi are actually somewhat similar to the professional mercenaries of medieval ages, though our current use of the term 'mercenary' gives that a connotation that isn't meant by the comparison. Seems like a stretch that they'd be used like that, though. And it would still require communication and coordination (or rather, command and control?).

There's also the possibility of outside forces, I suppose. I mean, you'd have to get our existing military to stand aside while you brought them in. And you'd have to have absolutely no morals whatsoever, and be a traitor to the country... but if you had all of that you could probably invite in foreign support. (I'm not talking about advisors and forces requested through official channels. Like the Germans and French that helped our revolutionary forces fight the British. There's a difference between asking aid to help fight off another foreign power and asking for aid to take over your own government against all it's laws and traditions.)

Anyways, all of those should have pretty obvious warning signs if you know what to look for. The gist of all of that is that our current troubles will probably be decided in a court of law. Courts which have rather consistently thrown out most of the Trump team's cases for a rather shocking lack of evidence.

Trump, Cont

 I brought up my personal rules of thumb in the prior post, because when it comes to Trump people are all over the map.

I have heard people argue that he and his administration are all incompetent buffoons, and no threat. That they're sinister manipulators, deliberately exhausting us with scandal after scandal. That Trump wants to start his own news network. That he's afraid of losing his immunity from prosecution, and thus will do anything to stay in office. That he's trying to take on the 'deep state' and a cabal of satanic pedophiles who drink the blood of innocent children. That he's a fraud, and that you really have to watch out for the manipulative masterminds using him (said manipulator could be Putin, or Stephen Miller, or Mitch McConnell, or someone else).

All of these, btw, have very different meanings for our current situation. Is the buffoonery in court something we can safely ignore? Is all this fuss and furor simply the Republican Party humoring Trump because they're too afraid to tell him he lost? Or do they seriously think they can overturn this election, and how far are they willing to go to do it? How much are they riling up the base because they're fools who put a short term win over the long term good of this country, and how much is the tail wagging the dog? 

Truthfully, I look forward to Biden taking office because it's been like this for four. fricking. years. All rumor and speculation and nobody really ever seems to know. It's exhausting, whether that's deliberate and drawing from Putin's playbook or not, and I'm really rather sick of it. There has been so much crap that eventually gets pushed aside and forgotten because of whatever the next big scandal is, and it just keeps on happening over and over and over again. I'm tired of it. I want it to go away. I want Trump to fade into obscurity and I never want to hear about him ever again. (That's not happening, I know. I just wish it would.)

There's always been a hefty amount of speculation about what goes on in a president's court, but the speculation surrounding Trump and his team is on a whole other level. 

Which makes it very, very hard to evaluate much of anything. (I suppose I probably ought to read some of Woodward's books about the Trump administration. I generally haven't bought books like that before, but I do like articles that have that sort of insider view. Mostly because they contain pieces to add to my puzzle, if that makes sense. Like... I care less about the political stance - though that does matter - and more about what sort of decision-making team they're building. Are they surrounding themselves with yes-men and loyalists? How do they handle bad news? Do they micro-manage? Are they surrounding themselves with people like Rumsfeld and Cheney? Do they have a kitchen cabinet? I can't really describe what I'm looking for, specifically, just that every so often I stumble across something that feels like an important piece worth noting.)

Much of the problem is that Trump, more than any president in my lifetime, evokes the hope and fear that generally clouds people's judgment. 

I started off with the 'hope' because even though I've grown convinced he won't fulfill those expectations, many of his supporters hope he will. They want him to stop the forever wars, stop us from losing jobs overseas, stop enabling a system that ignores and marginalizes average Americans... there's a lot of stuff he tapped into in order to get the support he has. (It's just that most of them are so blinded by that hope that they ignore and dismiss the many, many signs that Trump isn't their guy.)

The flip side of that is fear. You all are probably familiar with that, too. Fear that Trump is another Hitler in the making. That he is far more clever than people give him credit for, and is using that cleverness maliciously. That he will launch a coup, if he hasn't already, and destroy the democracy we hold so dear.

Getting at the truth is hard, if not downright impossible. For as much turnover as he's had with his staff and as much as they do leak to the press, all it seems to do is generate more and more conflicting reports... so it tends to add to the confusion and uncertainty rather than really help.

I'll also admit that I've disliked Trump since well before he ever ran for office. I've never watched The Apprentice, and I never wanted to. He gave the impression, to me at least, of the typical mistaken image of a 'great leader' that I would actually never want to work for. He reminds me of the Jim Collins books How the Mighty Fall and the description of the 'white knight CEO' type that companies hire as they tip into failure. All that "I alone can save you" BS, when what we really need is the type of leader who says "together we can ____"

But... I never watched his show, so it's not like I have much to make that evaluation with. I have read various things over the years, though. Like the contractors he hired and then stiff to work on his hotels. And how he tended to use his money and power to bully them with litigation (since most of these hard working contractors can't afford a sustained legal effort).

While I don't have any direct access, the picture I've built over the years is of someone who is angry, petty, and vindictive. Unpredictable, too. Rather a bully, with no concern about 'norms' or 'conventions' or any sort of morals I've been able to find. Very transactional. He lives in that 'I got mine, how you do' world I've described before... and if he does you a favor he expects payback. Like the way he threatens federal aid to state governors he doesn't like. 

We've had people for years talk about when he'll start acting presidential, when he'll be more 'normal'... and although  he manages to tone things down for a day or a week or so, it never lasts. This is what we have, this is who he is, and every time you expect him to act like a 'normal' president you will be wrong.

I have no idea what he's thinking. More importantly, I think his only limit comes from the people around him. And given we've seen the Republican Party roll over for him, repeatedly, I have no idea what that means. Oh, and I do think there's some fishy stuff going on with the Christian conservatives - the DeVoss, and Erik Prince, and Bill Barr types. Sydney Powell is apparently one of them, too. Heck if I know what they're up to, other than that I don't think it's anything good. 

At least the military is one of those limits (and thank God for our history of being apolitical, and swearing to the Constitution rather than an individual. Realpolitik focuses on the underlying ability to use force to support your position. It's... misleading I think. For reasons I'm not ready to write about right now. But there's an element of truth to it in that the ability to control the military and use force to win is often a deciding factor. That's why military coups happen so often in history... and also why our norms and traditions of the citizen soldier matter. It's also interesting how our presidency, for all the power and resources available for foreign policy and international relations, actually has quite strict limits domestically. That is by design, of course. But we talk about 'most powerful man' and 'leader of the free world', and yet state governors can and have essentially told him to f___ off. Generally more politely than that, ofc.)

All of which is a long and complicated way of saying - I don't know what the heck is going on, but it concerns me. Especially since it's now been a couple of weeks since the election and there is still no sign that Trump and his supporters have accepted his loss. 

And I won't rest easy until Biden is inaugurated in January.

Patriotism

I was always one of 'the smart ones', which sometimes meant I had opportunities others didn't.  For example, in middle school I participated in a field trip to a mental health hospital.  At least, I think that's what it was.  I mostly remember a magician performing various tricks (I got a deck of cards that showed all black jacks if you flipped it a certain way) and also talking about mental health.

Okay, it sounds weird when I type it out like this.  Especially as I find myself questioning the details...it was over 20 years ago now.  Despite distance and time, however, the magician said something that has stuck with me all these years.  He said that maturity was recognizing that your parents were flawed.  Imperfect.  And loving them anyway.


I would expand on that 'parents' bit, and say it applies to anyone or anything that you idolize and put on a pedestal.  See, if you love it only because you think it's perfect...then you are seeing only a partial image of what you love.  And you are at serious risk of becoming disappointed, cynical, and angry when the façade inevitably fails.


We are all...imperfect.  And there is something powerful in being able to admit our flaws, and knowing we are loved and accepted anyway.  Powerful and scary, of course.  We try so very hard to pretend they don't exist.  We don't want to be vulnerable, get embarrassed when someone sees us screw up.  And that is part of why it is so amazing, when someone does see all that, and accepts us anyway.


This view on love and relationships has it's downsides, of course.  It makes it harder for me to get swept away, since I believe/know that the initial chemistry/Eros is just that.  And in the back of my mind is the question of "what happens when we start seeing past that?"  Will this person really stand by me, even when they see me get short-tempered and curt?  And can I stand by them, in turn?  Can we expand from Eros into Agape and Phileo and Ludus and Storge kinds of love?


Still, it seems more...healthy.  Wholesome.  I think putting anyone or anything on a pedestal is a recipe for disaster.  You're just one eye-opening experience away from having it all crash down on you.  Besides, it's a lot of work living on a pedestal.  You have to be perfect, you can't make mistakes.  (It reminds me a bit of the movie The Full Monty, and the guy who couldn't admit to his wife that he'd lost his job...so he kept leaving the house every day pretending that he was gong to work.  His wife, in that case, couldn't be a comfort and support.  He was too busy keeping up appearances for her.)  Don't put them on a pedestal, but don't get cynical and go looking for flaws.  It's about accepting and loving anyway, not tearing people down for not being perfect.


But I titled this post 'Patriotism', because all of this is background for my love of country.  That is - I think putting America on a pedestal and insisting we're perfect (and awesome) is as superficial and shallow as that first stage of love.  It means acting as though any hint of criticism is an attack, as though anyone suggesting we do things different or better is somehow saying that our country is not worth supporting.


At the same time, there is a strand of exactly that in some critiques.  Yes, we have problems.  Boy, do we have problems.  And yet there's something to be said for a society where the majority of our people feel like it's safe to completely ignore politics.  Where we don't have to worry about losing our jobs or being turned in by a neighbor (or family member) if we insult Trump or Hillary.  Or Bush, or Obama, or any of our leaders. 


I struggle with my definition of love, sometimes.  I'll use work as an example.  Sure, there's always the honeymoon period.  The first year or so, where you think your work place is awesome and really enjoy being there.  When something comes to disillusion you, is it just paving the way for a more mature understanding of the company?  Or is it a true indication that something is wrong, that maybe this isn't the right fit, and maybe it's time to move on?  I thought I gave up on finding that 'perfect' place to work, you see.  And yet I find that there are still things that grow more irritating the longer I work here, to the point where I needed to make a change.


So anyways.  I'm writing this as a bit of an explanation for why I'm still taking a hiatus on national security.  It's not exactly about Trump's election.  (I'm worried about what will come, and not too thrilled he won...and yet I'm also kind of pleased at how much the DC establishment is freaking out about it.  It's complicated and I may try to explain more later.  It's like...I don't like racism, sexism, and his crude and inconsiderate behavior...but the reaction to his win seems to add weight to some long-standing conservative critiques that I'd previously dismissed.  And there are such radically conflicting perspectives that I have a hard time sorting it out.  But I'm digressing.)


I love my country.  I will shamelessly use my military service in support of that statement, because it disrupts the assumption that any criticism comes from a lack of patriotism. 


That said...there are times where I really question who we are and what we're doing.  I'm having a hard time finishing that book on Kissinger, for example, because so much of what he (and the establishment at that time.  I don't want to put it all one guy, he had support) did in Cambodia was just flat out wrong.  As in 'banality of evil' wrong.  Kind of made me sick to read it, which is sad to say about something that happened well before I was born and that I am completely unable to do anything about.  And yet he's considered a well-respected statesman!!!  Hillary was talking about how she has his support!!!  


The Wikipedia article I linked to said that "One of the key issues that prevented congressional inclusion was the embarrassing fact that five key members of both political parties had been privy to the information and had neither said nor done anything about it". 


This is the kind of thing that really bothers me, because it implies that this really isn't about one or two bad decisions.  It implies that the bi-partisan establishment consensus supported what happened.  And that even if it was only a few key players, the rest of the establishment would rather hush it up and carry on than actually do anything to prevent it from ever happening again.


It's also the kind of thing that makes me wonder if I'm naïve, in thinking that our nation is mostly a force for good in the world.  That maybe the corruption really has gone too deep.  It's the kind of thinking that, frankly, Donald Trump was able to tap into. (Even though what I just described has more in common with far left critiques.  Yes, I know.)


There's more I could get into here.  Hillary's e-mails.  Foreign policy.  Russian hacking.  The CIA and FBI and conflicting analysis thereof.  The establishment. 


A lot more.  But...I don't think I'll ever have the access to answer those sorts of questions.  Not really.  To give you one example of what I'm talking about - I posted something on Facebook about Russian hacking, as almost everything I heard indicated that the Russian government was really involved.  Only to have a friend (who has a clearance, has served at the Pentagon, and is now part of the new cyber command) say that there was reason to doubt their involvement.  I think she probably has the access to know...and if that's true, then wth is going on with all the news reports saying differently?


This happened before the election, I think it was in response to something I posted about Trump's comments during a debate.  And yet that was in the back of my mind during the more recent discussion about CIA and FBI analysis on Russian involvement.  If my friend is telling the truth, then the media and CIA are not.  Their narrative of Russian interference falls apart.  And what are the consequences of believing that narrative?  Of having a large and influential group blaming Russia?


And vice versa. If the media and CIA are telling the truth, then there's an alarmingly large and influential group of people who disagree...and what are the consequences of that?
Of course, now the news says that the FBI supports the CIA narrative of Russian interference.  So maybe there is a consensus.
Then again, my friend also said she knew members of the Secret Service who confirmed some of the negative stories about Hillary...and yet Secret Service leadership publicly discredited the book written by that ex-Secret Service guy making similar allegations.  Which says either the author was writing about second-hand accounts, or that Hillary has enough pull to make the Secret Service cover for her.  Or something.


There are a lot of things going on right now, and I'm not really sure what to say in the face of it.


So hey, I'm going back to school and studying computer science.  Maybe I can't shape the course of American national security, but I can at least learn something new and interesting and hopefully get a good (non-corporate) career out of it.

Post Election

Since this seems to address some of the concerns raised in my previous post, I figured I'd place it here.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html?sr=fbCNN111316donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview0809PMVODtop

Post-Election

It's now been a couple of days since the election, and the shock is wearing off.  There are a couple of different articles out there trying to understand what happened.  I've been quiet mostly because I've been reading, and lurking, and figuring out my own reaction.  I don't like to blog something when someone else has said it better, particularly when they've got data to back it up. 

So why post now?

Well, we're still seeing the after-effects.  Facebook posts from people terrified of what may come.  Or Trump supporters offended by exactly those same reactions.  Articles about horrid situations where people are harassed (and at least one where someone made up a story about being harassed, which of course some people will probably use to discredit the rest.)

I had a discussion with my Little this week, from Big Brothers Big Sisters.  A little background here - she's 12 years old.  White.  But most of her friends are black.  Her family is kind of rural, so she listens to country and rap and anything she doesn't consider 'old'.  (She made me listen to that Panda song).  After the election, she casually said that some of her friends were discussing killing themselves.  The way she said it, it didn't sound like she was actually considering it...but what the hell are 12 year old girls doing, talking about killing themselves because Trump got elected?  I don't know if the discussion was tied to the rumor of transgender teens committing suicide after his election.

People are scared. Genuinely worried about what will come.  On the one hand, it seems a little premature.  Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet.  The hateful incidents that have occurred since the election aren't state sponsored.  It's just horrid people who are emboldened by Trump's win (and by state-sponsored, I don't just mean 'legal law enforcement'.  Regimes like Iran have sometimes used 'volunteers' to enforce behavior.  Sometimes states even pretend that they aren't behind it.)

That doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about, of course.  I think everyone will be keeping a very close eye on how Trump governs.  And will be paying close attention to anything that infringes on basic rights, or suggests rounding people up and putting them in internment camps, or suggests making people wear distinctive symbols.

At the same time - we've got a Republican president, Republican Senate, and Republican House.  If Trump proposes something illegal, will the Republican Congress really stop him?

The problem with writing this post is that I don't know how to do justice to both sides.  In a normal, run-of-the-mill situation, I would say let the Republicans run things.  They'll probably overextend, misread their support, make mistakes, and basically lose soon enough.  (Democrats and Republicans both tend to do this on a regular basis.)

And if it helps persuade people that some ideas don't work (like trickle-down economics), or that other ideas do, then so much the better.  And, of course, I could be wrong about what works and what doesn't...so maybe their proposals will actually work.

Point is, normally we have the time and strength to experiment a bit.  Go down a wrong path for a bit, and in the process prove that it's not going to get us where we want.

Only thing is, that works for policies that don't have the impact I described above.  If it's just a matter of lowering taxes on the rich and deregulating finance, well...we'll survive another financial crisis I suppose.  It'll make all the people who suffered under the Great Recession even more ticked off, and it would definitely create more suffering...but we'll survive.

But what about Muslims?  Or Mexicans?  I have a friend who married a Mexican, they have three children together.  He wrote a heart-breaking post describing some of the situations they've already faced...and she's here legally.  Here's a small excerpt:

The people supporting Trump have probably never had to justify their marriage to a DHS agent.
The people supporting Trump have never had to learn that their niece was crying because she's afraid the next President will deport her (completely legal) aunt.
The people supporting Trump will never have to explain to their children that yes, when people use those racial slurs, they are talking about mommy and they are talking about you.
The people supporting Trump don't know the bone-chilling, panic-attack inducing fear and helplessness that has consumed my family since one of the two major political parties chose as their Presidential candidate a man who has made overtly racist, unconstitutional anti-immigrant policies the cornerstone of his platform.

Can we honestly say that they have nothing to fear? 

Or what about gay marriage?  What if Congress decided to ban gay marriage again, and Trump's Supreme Court nominee ensures it's not declared unconstitutional?

As for me - I don't know what Trump is going to do.  He's been pretty unpredictable throughout the election.  He's contradicted himself and reversed policy positions so many times that I don't think we have any idea what we're truly going to get.