This Week's Election

This election was an intense experience. I'm delighted by the state and local results, impressed by the strong efforts of both sides, but sad for some of the losing candidates. 

I felt a certain camaraderie with others working hard (or just rooting) for the election of progressive candidates, including Congresswoman-elect Xochitl Torres Small; there were inspiring moments; but I empathize with folks like Ben Rawson and Yvette Herrell who busted their tails, invested great energy and emotion into campaigning, and probably believed (as fervently as Xochi or Steve or Shannon or Kim) that they were fighting for the best interests of our community and country. I can't help but respect their efforts. 

Election Night, David Brooks commented, “This is a great night for humility.” Republicans, he noted, were riding a great economy (albeit a recovery initiated during Obama's tenure), and still couldn't do better. Democrats were opposing a much-disliked president with low approval ratings who struck even supporters as a buffoon, but couldn't do better.

What does all this mean?

Well, a Democratic House majority is a ray of hope for saving our republic. The House will be able to vote down some pernicious legislation and hold hearings (subpoenaing witnesses and documents) on alleged wrongdoing. (They should use that power judiciously, for only the worst abuses.) Trump will oppose them vigorously, rejecting legal requests and mocking the Congress, while hoping a friendly Supreme Court will stretch or ignore laws to protect him.

At least two more years of a Republican Senate means two more years of rubber-stamping unqualified judicial nominees who meet the far-right ideological criteria of the Federalist Society. It means automatic approval of more administrative nominees who are unqualified, inept, and/or corrupt. It means two more years of ignoring climate change, environmental concerns, and consumers. It means that if – yes, if – Robert Mueller's report, or House investigations, uncover solid reasons to impeach Trump, nothing will happen absent grounds so compelling you'd impeach your mother for such conduct.

The election won't cure our incivility epidemic or the uncompromising nature of our leaders (and us). When the Democratic House tries to do its job, Trump will ratchet up the rhetoric and so will Democratic Congresspersons. But the House-Senate split will require some conversation and compromise to keep things going. Meanwhile, Trump's firing of Attorney-General Jeff Sessions and appointment of a dishonest and unqualified puppet may require Senate Republicans to make some tough decisions. Many have said that firing Mueller would be going too far; but will they stick to their words? 

We have a lot of work to do. Money is still way too powerful in politics. Economic inequality continues to grow, which is bad for society and for the economy. We continue to ignore serious infrastructure needs, and the Trumpists have hobbled the government financially. We're missing the opportunity to take the lead in the global shift to renewable energy, so that when our rapidly changing climate forces a reckoning, and we finally try to act, we'll be buying Chinese technology, along with everyone else. (In trying to resuscitate coal and subsidize oil and gas, Republicans resemble early 20^th Century leaders putting all our money on better horses and harnesses, certain that horseless carriages are a silly notion.) 

This election, hard as it was for so many people in so many ways, is a step in the right direction.

And Ms. Torres Small is going to Washington!

                                               -30-

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 November 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG Radio and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (stream at www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[When we discussed the election Wednesday morning on "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" we discussed several points that didn't find their way into the column.

First, the relatively positive Democratic result occurred despite continued Republican efforts at voter suppression.  Second, the cross-section of the overall electorate that voted Democratic is the segment that's growing, and Republicans were saved from disaster by the portion of the electorate that's declining.]

[Key to the second point is that old white guys --- who dominate the Republican presence in the House and Senate and to whom Trump's bellicose racism and sexism are supposed to appeal -- are not the electorate.  Ethnically, we're increasingly diverse, and the Republican focus on Christian whites, particularly Christian white males, is out of step.  Each election, whites are a smaller proportion of the voters.
Meanwhile, political sentiments among older folks (of whom I'm one) will change.  Dems looked good among younger voters, and each year there's a new batch of those.  Republicans do well among older folks, of whom a bunch die off or lose interest each year.  This year, the Republican edge among over-65 voters was down to just 2 points.  In the 2014 voters, over-65's voted Republican by 17 points.  
That change is partly attributable to Donald Trump, but I think there's a more systemic change in progress.
I'll be 72 in a few weeks.  When I was 20, very few U.S. citizens were against the war in Viet Nam.  I'd been down South in the Civil Rights Movement in 1965, at 18, and at that time many of my white friends at home and at college didn't approve.  Many whites at my high school, north of New York City, were racist, though the degrees of racism in them varied.  Most favored the war or paid no attention.  

Within just a few years, things changed.  By 1968 the so-called counterculture was at least a significant minority among youth.  Younger kids grew up seeing and hearing the ideas of peace and equality being espoused by dynamic young men and women.  

What that means is that the folks who are 70-72 were right on the cusp of something.  A high percentage of the folks older than that were formed more by the 1950's (which extended into the early '60's) and opposed the changes going on then, and likely accepted those changes less grudgingly than people my age.

Among people my age, I noticed that a lot of friends and acquaintances had the same conversation with me a few years later, or even decades later: "Man, you were right." They'd come around to more tolerant views (because they got to know non-whites at work, or a kid married a non-white person, or whatever) and we all learned more from the feminist movement and then Gay Liberation.   This didn't affect everyone; but the folks over 75, who are declining in numbers, boast a higher percentage of folks who grew up racist and intolerant; and the folks just turning 65 have a high percentage of people who matured in a more tolerant moment.]

 

[As to the first point, anyone who's followed Republican's extreme gerrymandering and imaginative ways to suppress poor or minority voting knows the "blue wave" could have and should have been more powerful.  The North Dakota trick of requiring a physical address -- when the vast majority of Native Americans live out somewhere rural and use a post-office box -- was just one blatant example.  As it happens, the response was a heroic effort to register or re-register Indians.]