Politics

Re-Directing the Anger Post-Election

So Trump is to be the next president. What a huge surprise as so many didn’t think he could do it. What should be far more alarming than Trump’s win are the resentments and divisions it’s causing between people. Like it or not, Trump was a legitimate candidate, and any who voted for him had every right to do so. As we continue to move farther into the post-election season, it’s important we don’t get stuck in a cycle of hate and re-direct anger towards those who deserve it and away from each other.

The people who voted for Trump had their reasons for doing so, as did those who voted for Clinton. Some voted for a third party, but many people don’t view this as an option. Instead, they believed they had to make a choice and decide who was the lesser of two evils; a truly sad state of affairs. The campaign was ugly and brutal. The main focus for both sides was one of personal attacks and blame with little attention devoted to issues. They certainly did Jerry Springer proud.

So, whose fault was this? It isn’t our fellow citizens, it’s the establishment. These are the choices we were presented with. So why are people continuing to direct their anger towards each other in this post-election season? Where is it written that you must vote the way others want you to? The ballot box has always been regarded as a sacred and important part of how we define our country. Don’t be so quick to abuse it or in future it may come back on you. Harassing those who didn’t vote your way accomplishes nothing.

But undoubtedly, the establishment loves to see this happening. If our anger is directed at one another then it’s not directed at them – where it belongs. This is playing right into their hands, and the talking heads of the mainstream media is complicit in this. They accomplish this by appealing to people’s emotions and avoiding logic by way of misleading and false news. This is not beneficial, and is in fact a dangerous tactic. The more we take out our frustrations and anger on each other and not the establishment, then the less motivated they will be to make any changes. They just sit back and enjoy the show. Is this really the result we want?

Voting may or may not be rigged, but the system surely is. The political parties, corporations, banks, and lobbyists, aided by their mouthpiece the mainstream media, have molded and deformed the system to suit their needs and ignore ours. That’s why the election choices we had weren’t much of a choice at all; but the result was a start. The win for Trump signified, more than anything else, that Americans are fed up with the status quo. Perhaps this will lead to reform and better choices in the future. This is where we should be directing our energies in this post-election season and moving forward.

Real and meaningful reforms will have to be pursued doggedly and forcefully. They will not change or give anything up lightly or willingly. But it’s going to take perseverance and hard work to make it happen, and we can’t do that if we’re divided. You make might not like him, but Trump has won so let’s see where he takes us and how he does. After all, there will be another election four years from now. If we can keep the spotlight and pressure on the establishment, and they see we’re serious and united against their corruption, then hopefully we’ll see better choices next time around. If we allow this division to continue and build, we may see civil war instead.

Politics

Where Would You Like Your Conflict Served?

Ever found yourself eating in a greasy diner – not because you want to – but because it’s the option at hand? The environment is unclean and the menu choices are not very appetizing or healthy. This presents a conflict between the need to eat and the desire to. But since it’s what’s available you cross your fingers, make a choice, and hope for the best. Sounds a lot like our presidential election this year, doesn’t it? Except there is much more at stake than just indigestion or food poisoning.

So how to decide which poor choice to go with at the polls? It’s common practice for lies to be told and campaign promises to be broken, so other factors need to be considered. One important area is the potential for increased future conflict and war, and both candidates show signs of it. The difference between them is where it’s most likely to be played out.

An escalation in international conflict and war under Clinton is highly likely. She has aligned herself with the neoconservative warmongers and in fact doesn’t hide it. She will be an aggressive president pursuing aggressive policies all over the world. Top of the list is Russia. Further and severe deterioration in relations with Russia will occur. We have been pushing and provoking them for quite a while now. Eventually they are going to push back. What then? Assuming they could be easily defeated is a dangerous mindset to have. Such things rarely proceed and play out as people expect.

Nuclear war has been avoided for many decades, but cooler and saner heads in Washington no longer prevail. I cannot help but wonder if mutually assured destruction is turning into self-assured destruction. If Clinton is elected – and this is the most likely outcome – be afraid. Be very afraid. The tension level is going to ratchet up considerably. She is going to push them, and she will push hard.

While Clinton’s penchant for conflict lies abroad, Trump’s  – with the exception of Mexico – lies mostly at home. He is adept at bringing to the surface people’s base emotions. Perhaps because he is so expressive with his that people feel more freedom to vent their own. He likes to stir the pot because he is good at it and he knows it. Stirring the political pot hasn’t been a bad thing because our political system needs shaken up. But I very much fear that this would be his normal mode of operation in domestic matters if he is elected.

Tact and diplomacy don’t seem to be traits Trump possesses. If he does he hides them well. His aggressive rhetorical style has the potential to raise tensions in this country to an extremely uncomfortable level. Of course some of that over the top rhetoric is because it’s campaign season. It always increases during this time. However, in Trump’s case I don’t think it can all be put down to that alone. I think we’ve been getting just a little taste of his true personality. He is good at antagonizing prejudices, thereby undermining efforts of cooperation and negotiation. He could very well be a president of one step forwards, and two steps back.

I realize that this is an oversimplified generalization of both candidates. But when I step back and view them this is what I see. Clinton representing increased international conflict and war, and Trump increased domestic conflict and – who knows – a possible future Civil War. Perhaps I’m wrong. In this case I definitely wouldn’t mind being wrong. In this present environment of worldwide unrest, conflict, and war – anything is possible. Anything is what we should be prepared for.