
It's Going to Be Okay - forrestbrazeal
http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay.html
======
a_humean
The author is delusional. This isn't a re-run of Bush 2000 for liberals or
Obama 2008 for conservatives.

At a time of greatest institutional weakness, a demagogue with authoritarian
tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a
inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order has just been elected on a
wave of hate, lies, racism, and bigotry with the promise of locking up his
political opponents and abandoning international allies and obligations.

This is potentially a game changer from which there is no return and everyone
is a loser.

~~~
devonkim
The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton
was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing -
keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one
president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan.
It implies that Americans' desire for party change may be among the strongest
of predictors. On the other hand, this party streak breaking is completely
irrelevant for any other elected branch of the government as seen by the
unending cycle of easy defense for incumbents in office.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton
was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing -
keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one
president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan.

The Democrats actually managed it back after the Great Depression. Three terms
of Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed by one of Harry Truman.

~~~
bryondowd
Yep, and the Republicans did it 3 more times before that. And then there's
Jackson/Van Buren three terms Dem which immediately follows the first big run
of Thomas Jefferson and co running 7 terms as the Democratic-Republican party.

So really, it's just uncommon in the last sixty-odd years.

~~~
devonkim
So when the 22nd amendment was passed to limit the president to two terms in
1951 that seems to have changed the dynamics considerably.

~~~
kjbflsudfb
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't have a good control group to be able to know for
certain. I think there is some psychological effect the term limit has on
voters. For many the end of a second terms appeals to them as an opportunity
of a fresh start (for better or worse), which may translate into electing a
leader from a different party.

------
nsxwolf
In 2008, McCain voters were very disappointed but didn't experience the total
loss of emotional control I've witnessed last night and this morning.

This article is a rare expression of maturity.

~~~
legodt
Yes it's almost as if McCain voters were mostly straight white people with
very little to lose with an Obama presidency. Almost as if, say, major
portions of the left today are marginalized groups who are now at risk of a
Klan backed president....

Funny how that works out

~~~
milankragujevic
[http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-
klan/](http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/)

~~~
finiter
Robert Byrd left the KKK in the 1940s. Then he spent decades apologising for
it, saying he had been wrong, and fighting FOR Civil Rights. THe NAACP said
this of Byrd when he died:

"Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a
stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many
other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and
liberties of our country."[1]

Does this really compare to Trump's support from the KKK and his resistance to
rejecting them?

1: [https://donate.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-
passin...](https://donate.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-
of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd/)

~~~
nsxwolf
It doesn't compare.

A Republican who was once in the KKK would never be forgiven no matter how
many decades went by.

And you aren't responsible for who endorses you. Trump doesn't actually
believe in white supremacy, so a KKK endorsement is meaningless and it's a
logical fallacy to say otherwise. If the KKK endorsed carrot cake, carrot cake
would not suddenly be bad.

Unless it's the kind with the overly sweetened frosting they serve in
cafeterias. With the little orange and green frosting carrot on top.

------
danso
> _But Trump can still do a huge amount of damage.”_

> _Yes he can. And that sucks. But every president can do a lot of damage, and
> many of them do, and we’re still standing. And remember, the president is
> seriously limited in what he can do without the approval of other parts of
> the government, so he’s unlikely to be able to carry out anything that
> crazy._

Not every one is in the situation to sit back and take this with stride. I'm
happy that the author is, and all things considered, I'm probably in that
position, too. But if I were in a group that faced potential
disenfranchisement, I wouldn't be laid back at the prospect of Republicans
controlling all 3 branches of government.

~~~
deadringerr
You're correct - I am directly negatively affected by Supreme Court
nominations that favour the removal of Roe v Wade, legal same-sex marriage,
and the Affordable Care act. I will not be laid back.

~~~
masonic

      that favour the removal of Roe v Wade
    

You seem to be totally unfamiliar with the actual case and the justices'
opinions.

 _Five_ of the seven who supported the plaintiff (e.g. to uphold abortion
rights) were _Republican appointees_.

~~~
deadringerr
I wouldn't say totally unfamiliar, but I suppose I'm biased to my own
understanding.

Correct, Republican appointees did support and continue to reaffirm
constitutional protections for abortion rights. However, it is not clear to me
that the Republicans making those appointments made a clear statement vowing
that they would appoint those who would be in favor of removing Roe v Wade
[0]. The seat currently open will be unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade
regardless of who was appointed. However, should Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy,
or Stephen Breyer leave the court (All >=78yrs) [1] and be replaced by Trump's
appointees. I understand it's not an immediate ability with the appointment of
one justice in that favour, but there's still reason for concern.

[0] [http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-
cou...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-
justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html)

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-
court-2016...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-supreme-
court-20161109-story.html)

------
LeifCarrotson
> it turns out that there are just as many people who are thrilled by last
> night’s election as there are people who are devastated by it. For every
> single American who voted for Hillary yesterday and who watched last night’s
> events unfold in horror, there’s another American out there who rejoiced.
> It’s a 1-to-1 ratio.

This has never been more incorrect than in this election. Many people who
voted for Trump only because they didn't want Hillary to be president. And
many who voted for Hillary because they didn't want Trump to be president.

When you get to pick your poison, that doesn't imply you're going to like the
poison you pick. It's still poison.

~~~
Retric
Ehh, Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin.

Trump won due to 64,252 voters in Florida. Alternatively, Hillary lost due to
8,693 voters in Michigan and 34,006 voters in Pennsylvania.

PS: It really was a tight race, but thinking in national terms is completely
misleading. And no I did not vote for Hillary or Trump or more importantly
live in a state that mattered.

~~~
briHass
> Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin

I'm not sure the facts support that statement. As of this comment:

Trump: 59,341,446 Clinton: 59,578,989

That's a difference of just 237,543 votes, out of about 125 million votes. Or,
less than 1/5th of a percent difference.

~~~
Retric
He got 47.5% of the popular vote. Which is slightly lower than 47.7% for
Hillary, but a long way from 50.001%.

Calling 47.5:52.5 a 1:1 ratio is rather far off it's 1:1.105.

~~~
briHass
I suppose what you're saying is that Johnson (3%), Stein (1%) and other (0.7%)
means that not everyone in the country voted for one of the two. While true,
the relative difference between the two main contenders is what matters.

According to Wikipedia's chart, this is the 3rd closest popular vote elections
in history.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin)

------
wwwdonohue
> “Easy for you to say, white male blogger. I’m brown and I don’t feel safe
> here anymore.”

> Here’s what I’ll say to that:

> This country had your back yesterday and it’ll have your back tomorrow.

The whole point of not feeling safe is that the country doesn't have their
back.

------
drops
Articles like this are sadly mostly useless because people who need to read
them the most are not going to.

Hardcore liberals who blame Trump and his supporters for "bigotry" usually
refuse to accept or even take a look at any other points of view, which is,
ironically, the definition of bigotry.

~~~
threatofrain
Don't blame people for not being able to see other people's perspectives. That
takes very hard physical work, and when you perhaps write down the kinds of
things that would be required to explore even a few divergent perspectives,
most people are simply not cut out for the task.

Additionally, most people are not even cut out for the task of coming up with
a credible narrative of what selfish rationality means to them. They have
difficulty describing even their own interests.

Heaven forbid they have to model the rationality of others! Heaven forbid a
model should have more than 3 factors in interaction!

------
davexunit
It's not going to be okay. A lot of marginalized people are going to be hurt
even more, and yes, the people that voted for Trump _are_ racists, sexists,
etc., or at the very least they are _fine_ with a president who is all of
those things.

~~~
reitanqild
> and yes, the people that voted for Trump are racists, sexists, etc.,

Not a Trump supporter, I don't like him and I live on another continent, but I
do not like the way some of you want to paint everyone who doesn't agree with
you as morally corrupt and divide USA even more.

Please guys, for your own good, stop, take a step back and think about why
this happened.

I argue that if the reason was that 50% of the voters are stupid haters then
you would had an real problem long before this election.

~~~
maldusiecle
We have had real problems, and continue to have them. It's not implausible at
all, given the US's (recent!) history, to suggest that 50+% of Americans are
racist or sexist. In some ways, it would be more surprising if the number was
less than 50%.

~~~
totalZero
...... please, stop.

This kind of absurd social justice rampage is exactly why people stayed quiet
in public, but privately voted for Trump at the ballot box.

~~~
reitanqild
Agreed.

I notice you have been downvoted. This post election shaming campaign is
really making certain "democrats" look bad.

I won't attribute it to all democrats but a few people here have been behaving
in what I see as a very undemocratic way over the last 24 hours.

That said, here is a protip: don't mention SJ, it just fuels the fire.

------
sp332
I think this is missing the part where Pence claimed, yesterday, that Trump
will be repealing many LGBT rights. That's not a political opinion, that's a
threat.

~~~
norea-armozel
Well let's see what he thinks of Minnesota or California basically tell him to
fly a kite.

~~~
Mickydtron
If Minnesota or California can protect the rights of their citizens, then good
for them, but it does not protect LGBT individuals in Texas or the Midwest.

~~~
norea-armozel
No doubt and I'm open to helping them anyway I can.

------
preordained
On another note, I find it really interesting that people are up in arms about
the "social damage" implications, as if that was the only thing at stake. What
about the damage potential of Hilary's desire to enforce a no-fly-zone over
Syria, unambiguously escalating tensions with Russia and moving us closer to a
potential WWIII? Acceptable for the sake of the former? A minor detail?

------
mmanfrin
This isn't about losing an election, this is about the next 40 years. Trump
will sit one justice immediately, setting the lean of the court, and likely 3
more over his presidency. He is setting the SCOTUS for the next 40 years.

He has all 3 branches.

------
preordained
I voted for Obama and I voted for Trump. I am not alone. The "other side" is
not the mythical homogenous group of zealots so many have painted it to be. A
lot of supposedly rational open-minded people are interpreting this in an
overly simplistic, frankly emotional way. I commend the message here. Just
stop and breathe. Take it in, don't jump to conclusions based on your knee-
jerk reaction/feelings.

------
Animats
Right now, we have no clue if it will be OK. We have no idea what Trump will
do on foreign policy. Harry Truman once said "domestic policy can only hurt
you, but foreign policy can kill you". He'd been in charge for the end of
WWII, after all.

It will matter a lot who Trump picks as Secretary of State. They'll probably
determine more of foreign policy than Trump does.

------
eli_gottlieb
I don't see how you can realistically claim that public policy _just doesn 't
matter_. Republicans just claimed control of the Presidency, the House, and
the Senate in a clean sweep, while the Supreme Court has a vacancy and
numerous federal judicial and executive positions remain unfilled. They are
going to be able to implement whatever they can come to consensus about within
their own ranks.

This isn't Windows versus Macintosh. This is life and death. You can hold the
opinion that the Republican policy platform is acceptable while acknowledging
that your party just got near-total power over a heavily divided,
regionalized, racialized country in an incredibly narrow victory. There is
going to be conflict over this.

------
nunez
This was a refreshing read. Thanks.

------
DubiousPusher
I think the mistake this post makes is that this revultion isn't just about
the politics. It's also and much more so for me, and the person.

------
lamontcg
Yeah, I was voting age through the Clinton and Bush Presidencies. I view the
Bush Presidency as a complete disaster. What we have here, however, is setup
to be worse, because the Republican Party has shifted even more to the right
with the rise of the Tea Party.

They can most immediately do massive damage through appointment of Supreme
Court justices. While its true that the open seat was an arch conservative and
having a Republican appointment to that seat will not change the balance of
power in the court much, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are all 78-83 and
mortality will be catching up with them soon. That puts Roe v. Wade
legitimately in jeopardy like never before.

When it comes to one of the biggest issues of our time -- climate change -- we
just elected the candidate who claimed that it was a chinese hoax. The House
is full of candidates who believe similarly. The most moderate of Republicans
are likely to dismiss the magnitude of the concerns over the climate and vote
in favor of protecting carbon based industries. It really is fairly black and
white on this issue and the fact that there's a few moderates who won't
straight up deny the science doesn't help when they form a coalition with the
anti-science tea partiers, the effect is going to be the same.

Its also likely that the ACA gets repealed now. It might take triggering the
"nuclear option" in the senate to override a fillibuster, but I can see that
happening now. About the only upside to this is that when 10 million or so
Americans wake up the next day and find they've lost their healthcare they
might think twice about voting Republican. Conceivably the possibility of that
backlash might cause some Republicans to defect and not consider the nuclear
option and this may not happen, but that is teetering on a hugely sharp knife
edge.

Then there's just rolling back all the progress over the past 8 years in civil
rights. At the very least it will solidly block progress for the next 4-8
years. It won't be getting any better. I can't imagine that the issues with
police shootings of black males will improve and that BLM will be going away.
If anything, I could see even more incidents like the Dallas shootings and
movements springing up that really were more like the Blank Panthers. Riots in
major cities, etc.

And then there's foreign involvement. I suspect that everyone who voted for
Trump thinking that was the anti-war vote is going to be shocked pretty soon
at how many boots we wind up with on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Syria. I would never defend Obama's drone strikes or Hillary's penchant for
bombing, but the Republican party is the one that likes to see Abrams battle
tanks rolling across sand dunes in the Middle East, which is orders of
magnitude worse. There was one anti-war candidate in this election and it was
Bernie Sanders. What we got was the Hawk in Dove's clothing.

And when it comes to financial crisis we're going to see the repeal of Dodd-
Frank almost certainly. The problem here is that while during the 2008 crisis
you saw George Bush's administration rescue the financial industry (and the
entire country) there's no assurances that we won't see the Trump
administration and the Republican congress blow up the US financial industry.
Last time there was that awkward picture of Treasury Secretary Paulson getting
down on one knee and begging Nancy Pelosi to stop the financial crisis. What
we've elected since then is the whole Tea Party wing who think the solution to
financial crisis is not regulation before it happens and instead is just
letting a financial crisis unwind with maximum possible destruction. Next time
we might see money market accounts lock up, short term credit evaporate and
literally ATMs and monthly paychecks from otherwise solvent industries stop.
We peered over that abyss in 2008 and now we've put all the people who thought
going over that cliff sounded like a great idea into power.

And even if you discount those last two arguments I made as being unlikely,
its still not remotely going to be okay.

------
wangii
couldn't agree more.

Imagine this election is a startup. You have this wonderful/magical/great
product but just not sell. Then what? Back to development and try again!

~~~
artmageddon
Sure, but the unfinished product can severely impact your life regardless of
how it's going.

