Reality Check: Believe the Numbers

A recent online exchange that questioned the number of votes won by President-elect Biden in the 2020 election inspires these counterpoints as to why I believe the numbers are essentially accurate. I have little hope of convincing those who are certain that THIS time Trump is telling the truth, but having spent 50+ years in education, tilting at windmills is hardly a new endeavor. I do not expect agreement on all these points. May I respectfully suggest, however, that rejecting ALL of them may say more about your political beliefs than election integrity. This is my reasoning. Even if only one or two resonate, that should be enough to make someone think.

I will limit my thoughts to bullet points, in honor of the departing incumbent. You’re welcome. Some of you know just how difficult that is for me! 

• I didn’t like the outcome, but I believed the vote in 2016. Trump didn’t win the popular vote that year, either. If you believed (or still believe) Trump’s 2016 fact-free claims about the popular vote, the verdict of no fraud verified by his own appointed investigative committee, then why are you wasting your time reading this?

• I walk. A lot. In my suburban, once reliably Republican neighborhood (of Webster Groves), Biden signs outnumbered Trump signs by at least 20:1, not counting “Any Functioning Adult,” “ByeDon,” “Anyone but Trump,” etc., nor all the independent BLM and similar signs, usually indicative not being in the Trump camp. No argument this a focused snapshot, but it does show, if not enthusiasm for Biden, at least the depth of antipathy toward the incumbent in my area. It is reasonable to assume there are many similar enclaves around the nation.

• In 2016 HRC ran the most abysmal, arrogant, entitled presidential campaign in modern history. She didn’t deserve to win. In 2020 Biden ran a better one. Why doesn’t that alone explain the increased votes?

• And Trump ran a worse one; he lost Arizona because he disrespected John McCain. An unforced error.

• Trump never reached out past his base, never offered an olive branch to expand his appeal. He kept hammering (tweeting?) the wedge, deepening the divide. His constant tweets were more unforced errors.

• Most voters, and thus most of the votes, live in cities/suburbs rather than rural/exurban areas. Trump’s unceasing attacks on cities – yet another unforced error.

• There is visual evidence of long lines of people in those urban areas, waiting to vote. That’s more evidence than exists for “truckloads/suitcases of fake ballots,” or “fraudulent voting machines,” or….

• Trump is a whiny, immoral, unlikeable bully. We want to like our president. No one likes a bully. It should come as no surprise that the disaffected voted in greater numbers.

• Many of his supporters, maybe even you, recognize that he is a lightning rod, a deliberately polarizing figure. Why would that not inspire more people than ever to vote? But Trump does get credit for inspiring a record turnout in both his supporters and opponents.

• Don’t the unprecedented public Biden endorsements, defections, and attacks by prominent Republicans and office holders provide a clear enough signal of Trump’s lack of support, even within his own party?

• Trump doesn’t beat just one dead horse, he has a whole stable of them. They’re still dead, though.

• Trump’s approval ratings* have been underwater since he took office. Your approval of him does not change those numbers. Is it so inconceivable that such unpopularity translates into votes for his opponent? (*I actually tracked them for several months because they gave me hope. I have the chart if you’re interested.)

• Of course there can be small scale conspiracies. But large scale conspiracies, like those Trump and his enablers describe, have too many moving parts, require too many secrets, too many people, to succeed without being exposed and collapsing. Unrealistic and absurd. 

• But if it really were possible to cheat on that large a scale, why did the Democrat Party not bother to win at least one of the toss-up Senate races? (Personally, I’d have rather won 4 of those than the presidency, as much as a second Trump term would have made me cringe.)

• Trump’s fraud claims have been rejected across the board, across the aisle, and across the country. Trump appointed judges, Republican office holders, Republican appointees, all have refuted the fraud claims. And now the Trump dominated SCOTUS, at least twice.

• Claiming the other “team” cheated before you even play may make you feel better about losing but doesn’t change the score. And if you truly believe you’re going to win, do you claim cheating in advance?

• Even many of his supporters and 2016 voters recognize his multitude of character flaws. Just because that wasn’t enough to sway them (or you) in 2020 doesn’t mean it wasn’t enough to sway others.

• I don’t know how many supporters he lost by disrespecting them (e.g., “I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue....”) but it seems logical to assume that at least some moved out of the neighborhood (5th Avenue).

• Had Trump even once taken personal responsibility (for anything, ever), admitted he made a mistake (about anything) or was wrong (about anything), he’d be planning his (unmasked) inaugural balls.

• Both parties are represented with poll watchers. There is STILL no objective, verifiable evidence of fraud. That is not to say no “bad” votes were cast, but in terms of risk/reward, the penalty for manipulating even a couple hundred votes (again, no evidence that happened) far outweighs what a cheater might hope to accomplish. Even the close votes were not THAT close.

 • He’s been lying since inauguration, with easily verifiable photographic (e.g, inauguration), audio (denying saying things that were recorded), and first person accounts. He may be a blatant and prolific liar, but he’s bad at it. You’d think all that practice would have helped, but no.

• Oh, and I never believed he colluded with the Russians in 2016. Granted, it’s mostly because he lacks the character traits (discretion, patience, intelligence) and skills needed to collude, but still….

Collusion Confusion & The Partisan Divide

President Trump repeatedly tweets and claims that he is not guilty of collusion. It may come as a surprise that I absolutely concur, although it’s neither a compliment nor an endorsement; Donald J. Trump is not capable of collusion (as far as I know, it is not even one of the many words he has misspelled).

Collusion requires listening skills; collusion requires the ability to work with others; collusion requires discretion and self-discipline; collusion requires loyalty and commitment to a common goal; collusion requires consistency. None of those attributes are hallmarks of the current president. His minions, of course, are, perhaps, another story.

Beyond that, I don’t think the Russians really cared who won the 2016 election. (If you think HRC was in their pocket but Trump is independent, or vice versa, your “stink test” detector might need a new battery.) There were advantages and disadvantages for Vladimir Putin to both candidates. No, what Putin wanted was exactly what he got, a divided nation with citizens so busy fighting amongst ourselves that Russian objectives, prime among them restoring Russia to global player and superpower status, could be achieved with a minimum of American interference. Russian trolls continue working to perpetuate those divisions.

“We have met the enemy and he is us,” said Pogo, so far back in the day that few of you reading this even get the reference.

Getting it, however, is less important than its truth. Are you part of the problem that is our toxic, tribal political atmosphere? If you’re posting or even sharing partisan memes, my answer is, “Yes.” If you’re railing and ranting against either liberals or conservatives, as if one group has a monopoly on truth or virtue, my answer is, “Yes.” If you’re pointing fingers (not just the middle one) or shaking fists at one group or another, religious or political or racial, if you’re generalizing and stereotyping, my answer is, “Yes.” If you believe that your team is good or that the “other” team is evil, my answer is, “Yes.” Political beliefs do not qualify their adherents as either saintly or ungodly.

Rabid partisans, almost by definition, are not prone to self-examination. Asking yourself, “What if I’m wrong?” before jumping in or sharing vitriol at least has the potential of mitigating some of the anger so prevalent on social media, the anger that continues to drive that wedge between us even deeper into our national soul. Of course, that means we have to admit such a possibility. But I’m guessing if you won’t, or can’t, admit that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong (and that an opposing point of view might have value), you probably never started reading this in the first place.   

The Anger Games – Where The Odds Are NOT in Your Favor And No One Wins

I’m trying to take what I hope is an objective look at the 2016 election, free of recrimination or accusation. I am having trouble organizing my inchoate thoughts. I apologize if this seems disjointed. And too long. I’ve edited myself as best I could, without taking more time. I want to get this written and published and then take a break. It’s too depressing. And I’m not talking about the results of the election, but rather the stereotyping and bitterness that continues to spew from both sides. We all need to remember that half the country voted for the other candidate. But what I seem to be seeing on social media (which is why I plan to take a nice long break) is a new reality show, The Anger Games. “You think you’re pissed?! Well, see how pissed I am! Take that!” And back and forth it goes.

November 8 marked the first (and last) time I voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it was more about voting against than voting for. Not that I believed most of the propaganda shoveled in her path; she was flawed, certainly, but I demand more evidence than hearsay and tenuous conspiracy theories before I buy into most of the accusations against her. Did she lose the election because she was a woman? Not really, although she was clearly held to a different standard than men and subjected to more intense scrutiny than male politicians. But anyone who voted against her because she was female wouldn’t have voted for a male with her belief system, either. (President Obama faced a similar challenge; the votes he lost because of race were not votes he could have ever won.)

Had HRC presented with the same characteristics as President-elect Trump, she would have had zero chance of even getting into a primary, much less out of one. I confess I still do not understand how his obvious flaws could be overlooked, not only overlooked but often celebrated. I hope his supporters don’t have to look back and consider the adage, “Be careful what you wish for.” I doubt that will happen, of course, and I’ll address that shortly.

But the primary cause of my reluctance, both this year and in 2008 is that she is, and has been for decades, a polarizing figure. Her mere presence in the political arena generates such antipathy in our country that I saw no way she could be an effective leader, no matter what other positive attributes, and in my opinion there were many, she might possess. However, the obvious polarization manifested since the election of Mr. Trump seems to point not to any particular candidate, but the widening division in our country. I fear that the number of people on either side who have closed their minds is growing and the rift between us is becoming a gaping chasm.

Still, Mr. Trump’s victory speech said the right things, calling for healing and unity. I hope (and will give him the benefit of the doubt) that those were more than just words, that he meant what he said. I further hope his more ardent supporters (again, half the country voted for the other candidate) also take those words to heart, although I haven’t seen too much of that yet on social media; granted, the occasionally unhinged comments of those who opposed him hardly constitute an olive branch either. Winners, however, real winners, are magnanimous in victory and don’t feel the need either gloat or to respond to every perceived slight. Responding with even more anger to the bitterness of the disappointed only drives the sharp wedge of division deeper into our collective soul.

We might want to remind ourselves (as I am not finished reminding you) that an essentially equal number of citizens voted for each candidate and that we need each other if we are to become “one nation, indivisible.” If Mr. Trump can lead us (supporters and opponents alike) in that direction, that would indeed be a step toward greatness and the most important accomplishment of his presidency. That will require, however, that all of us stop pointing fingers, laying blame, matching insult for insult (“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”), but instead go about the hard work of actually listening to each other, recognizing others’ points of view, practicing empathy (just because something is not your problem does not mean there is no problem), understanding that good people of good will can, and do, see the same picture differently because their life stories are different. Not better, not worse, just different. All those stories need to be valued.

I also call on President-elect Trump’s supporters stand up to the unsavory elements of his base. I know many, many good people who supported Mr. Trump. Undoubtedly, most of them were. Contrary to some extreme thinking, voting for Mr. Trump did not make someone racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. However, I’m pretty sure that every racist, sexist and xenophobe did, in fact, vote for him, which is their right, just as it is for unsavory characters on the left. But I would challenge his supporters to call out the racists, the sexists, the xenophobes when they rear their ugly, deplorable heads. And, by that, I mean truly stand up. Tsk, tsk, head-shaking or even, “Well, that’s not me,” and the like do not constitute a sufficient response to the ugly poison of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, etc. That is your responsibility to the rest of us. And our responsibility to the rest of you is to also point out the same, respectfully. Just because you do not recognize or believe something to be racist (and all the other -ists) does not mean you are correct.

I also hope that his supporters will objectively assess his presidency, statements and actions, and not go into auto-defense, bunker mentality, blindly defending his every move. He will be criticized by many, (over half the country did not vote for him) because listening to and accepting criticism is part of the job of being President of the United States. I don’t see this as a great strength of Mr. Trump, so it is up to his supporters to keep those lines of communication open and not reflexively strike back at the legitimate concerns of those who disagree. If you just sit in the echo chamber, defending every action because you somehow feel that you need to be “all in” (this expression is the only valuable thing to come out of televised poker, IMO) on your support, to the point that you cannot disagree or be critical, you do neither your country nor your president any favors. That, too, is your responsibility to the rest of us. On the other side, if, like me, you did not vote for Mr. Trump, our responsibility as citizens of the United States of America is to not reflexively oppose everything or everyone on his team.

By the same token, disappointed, or even angry, Clinton supporters must also recognize that good, decent people, millions and millions of them, voted for President-elect Trump, about the same number that voted for HRC. Although their votes may seem like a personal attack on your values (in much the same way that your vote for any other candidate might seem like a rejection of everything they hold dear), it was not. Their vote was not about you any more than your vote was about them. We all have our own perspectives, and until we start listening, truly listening to those perspectives, working to understand those perspectives, our divisions will not only remain open sores but will fester and the infection that plagues us and threatens our democratic republic will spread. It is all of our responsibility to treat those wounds, deep as they may be, gently, with respect, and work to heal them.

I do not minimize the difficulty of these responsibilities. I hope you do not minimize their importance. United we stand; divided, we will, inevitably, fall, and our once great nation will fail and truly no longer be great. And it won’t make a damn bit of difference which side is in power when that happens.

Uncivil War

Whichever of the two flawed candidates we elect, I fear that (s)he is incapable of healing our divided country. We may not see a “hot” civil war, but it seems to me that we are already in the middle of a “cold” civil war, with little, if any, prospect for healing the rifts that both political parties continue to exploit for their own power agendas. Our battered nation needs to heal, but, sadly, we will not be electing a leader who can bring that about.

I have zero hope that Hillary Clinton can unite the country should she win the presidency. She will want to be inclusive and talk about a united country. However, the wall between her and the citizenry, though not built by Donald Trump even if we are paying for it, is too big to scale; no matter how well she (and her speech writers) phrase it, a huge minority of the country not only won’t believe her, but will work to ensure that no one else does, either. I don’t see any way she can be an effective leader.

However, I have zero hope that Donald Trump even wants to bring the country together. He wants to rule the USA, but I’ve seen no evidence that he wants to lead it, to bring people together. (If there is any evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it; it would ease my mind – a little.) As near as I’ve been able to determine, based on his campaign, his supporters, and his statements, his goal is to bully anyone who disagrees with him into compliance. Should he win the election (a distinct possibility that terrifies me), I see only increased division and animosity as he attacks and scapegoats those who disagree with him.

I’ve probably become a broken record (“Mom, what’s a record?”); I will expect the worst and hope for the best, supporting the country and the office of the president, no matter who is in it. I’ll be curious to see if any members of the Trumpet section agree to play that tune or just continue to contribute the cacophony of division. Time will tell.

Examining Greatness

Sometime Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning, people are going to be unhappy with the outcome of the presidential election. Over half of the electorate, in fact.

I confess I don’t know what “Make America Great Again” means. I guess my key questions are, “If we are no longer great, when were we great? When did we start becoming great? Is there a year or event that marks our retreat from greatness? When we were great were things great for everyone, or even almost everyone?” My father thought the 50's were great, but then he was a white male working in corporate America, successfully navigating a path upward through the large group of people who comprised the middle class. I tried to remind him that the time that was great for him wasn’t necessarily that great for everyone. Kind of like my brother who, every Thanksgiving, opines, “Ham, probably the perfect food.” To which I always add, “Unless, of course, you’re Muslim or Jewish.” He response is a shrug. If it’s not his problem, it can’t possibly be a problem, right?

Back in the 1980s I felt lonely and isolated as the Reagan Revolution ushered in a decade of conservatism. I was who the polls said I was, the minority opinion. I said that if you wanted to predict the outcome of an election, find out who I was supporting and pick the other candidate. Of course, Reagan conservatism didn’t resemble anything like what ideologically conservative purists of today envision for the country; I didn’t like the direction he wanted to push the country (backward, IMO), but he recognized that he was the leader of a diverse nation and that slow movement, based on compromise and statesmanship, was not just the proper course, but the only course.

For better or worse, depending upon your POV, he succeeded in his big picture goals and slowed, but certainly did not stop, the progressive (fine, leftward) drift of the country. President Reagan spoke Conservative (and to conservatives) but was, at his core, a centrist, as were his successors, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. At the risk of underestimating him, if George W. Bush had philosophical position, I could never figure it out. He struck me as something of a puppet of the neocons, especially in terms of foreign policy, rather than his own man. Despite the rantings of the alt-right, Barack Obama has also been a centrist. (Center always looks farther to the left or right than it really is if your POV is left or right.)

Hilary Clinton is many things (and if you don’t recognize that your own biases, one way or the other, fuel your perception, why are you even reading this?), but will be, if elected, a centrist. I admit that I do not understand Donald Trump, politically or any other way, because his positions on issues have been all over the map from year to year, decade to decade. His current supporters’ rationalization that he is somehow now a conservative conveniently ignores history. Should he be elected, I would expect a similar roller coaster ride, and not just in the stock market. I do worry that he could tilt the Supreme Court in a direction that sees the past through rose-colored glasses. That alone may be enough to have you vote for or against him. It’s enough for me to oppose him, but there’s more that I might share on my decision in the next day or two. Or not, because I’m not trying to change minds as much as clarify my own thinking.