Appropriate reactions

[Camikaze]

So I'm interested in a bit of a meta-discussion about what is an appropriate reaction to what someone considers to be a devastating political loss. For most people here this is likely to mean a discussion of what the appropriate reaction to Trump's victory is, but if you were a Trump supporter, feel free to consider the issue more in the abstract (or, what was the appropriate response to McCain's loss for those who thought Obama's victory was catastrophic?).

Thus far in various threads, reactions from those who are opposed to Trump have ranged quite a bit, from "I'm leaving the country" to "it's really not so bad, pretty much business as usual". I suspect this range is largely correlated to how bad the possible consequences of the political loss is perceived to be; those who think Clinton was that much better than Trump don't see Trump's victory as much more the end of the world than a Clinton victory would have been. Meanwhile, those who think that a Trump presidency will actually be a complete and utter disaster in an unprecedented way, are reacting accordingly.

My personal view is that the answer is also one of perspective - within the confines of a presidential race, a Trump victory might be about the worst possible outcome, but how extensive are those confines? I think it's fair to say that the ramifications of his win are fairly large, and think it's fair to then point out that x, y, and z are likely to be the result. Dispassion in pointing those things out is probably desirable, but is probably hard to achieve for a lot of people. Meanwhile, it's also fair to then say that no, x & y are not going to happen because that's not really possible within the system, and z wouldn't be so bad anyway. That seems to be what political discussion is about.

So there are two variables which primarily determine a reaction - where a political loss sits in terms of possible outcomes, and what the extent of those possible outcomes actually are. So what does that say about the appropriateness of certain reactions? Does a perceived 'overreaction' concern the first variable or the second? What are the bases upon which someone can be criticised for an 'overreaction'? Can someone be criticised for an under-reaction? Is there an objectively correct reaction at all, or is it inherently subjective?

There's probably also the matter of involvement; is it harder to be more direct when the consequences of a political loss are something you'll have to deal with? If you're a Muslim in America at the moment, is it more reasonable to say that you're moving to Canada than it is for a young white male to say the same? Or is the appropriate reaction more a uniform thing, such that we can say that all people threatening to emigrate are overreacting?

I'm fairly lucky in that I'm quite removed from a Trump victory, so I'm seeing it more through the lens of "exciting political event" than "this is terrible how will I survive" (and probably much more so than a lot of American posters) - does personal detachment from a political loss provide more freedom for dispassionately assessing outcomes without the need to inject optimism or pessimism? Or is greater tact required when prognosticating about the impact of a political loss on other people?

Any thoughts on the topic are welcome.

 

[Commodore]

I just try to use history to give me hope. Even if Trump turns out to be as bad as everyone thinks he will be, humanity will still endure. We have endured much worse than Trump, and I think a lot of people lose sight of that after suffering a political defeat.

 

[Perfection]

We survived Bush, we can survive Trump. I just don't hope it causes the US to lose too much relevance on the world stage (as I fear it will).

 

[Arwon]

There's probably also the matter of involvement; is it harder to be more direct when the consequences of a political loss are something you'll have to deal with? If you're a Muslim in America at the moment, is it more reasonable to say that you're moving to Canada than it is for a young white male to say the same?

Of course it is. If you're in any of the groups likely to have your rights and safety trampled as a result of an election of course you're going to feel a more immediate threat. Laws and politics have consequences, and as a general rule the more marginalised and vulnerable parts of society (which in the US is everyone not straight, white, male, and well employed, in direct proportion to how far from that status they are) are the ones who laws, politics and ideology impact most strongly.

To use the Trump example, he wants to put people on the Supreme Court who will roll back gay marriage decisions and presumably do nothing to protect gay rights. People in gay-friendly states will probably be fine depending on how much influence "electrocute the gays straight" Pence has. But people in anti-gay ones are going to be feeling extremely threatened.

Similar story with regard to contraception and reproductive health. And with the election of a bloke who brags about sexual assault and a track record of sexist behaviour including illegal sexual discrimination, I can only imagine what that's going to do to discrimination law the battle against gender violence and inequality.

On another front, he's certain to overturn all the executive orders Obama has made to protect trans people, and that's already an extremely marginalised group subject to violence, as well as to degradation and humiliation due to the law. So trans people are likely to be feeling pretty scared with the reassertion of what Trump stands for.

If I've only gotten health insurance through recent law changes I'm going to feel very ill at ease right now. If I'm Muslim I'm obviously feeling like I'm going to be the target for more hatred, bigotry and harassment. If I'm Latin@, the people who don't think I'm legitimately American are emboldened now too and I can expect attempts to demean me with visa status checks, or even to deport me. If I'm black, the Trump and Republican attitude to police abuse will be terrifying, as will comments like Trump's saying the Central Park 5 should have been executed.

And in a lot of these cases I can also expect the voter suppression and disenfranchisement attempts to ramp up due to changes in the Supreme Court.

I also think if you're in none of the groups likely to feel the brunt of a political reaction of this nature, it's worth being a bit circumspect about saying "everything will be fine life will go on". A lot of people don't have the luxury of distance or privilege to insulate against raw politics, and probably don't appreciate the complacency, the jokes or the rationalisations. Plus it basically says " I don't care that much, you're on your own".

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I think world order stablished after ww2 is crumbling down. With Brexit, Trump and other populisms emerging triumphant over common sense and education. This is bad obviously at least in the short term but maybe cathartic in the long. Dont know if we are going to pay a high price for it thought as we did 70 years ago.

 

[Camikaze]

It's funny that you guys all mocked conservatives on here for talking like this when Obama was elected, and now you are all on here engaging in the exact same ridiculous rhetoric. You all should really look to Sommerswerd as your example. He's taking the loss like a man and still remains hopeful for the future.

(Sorry for changing threads, but I figure this one is probably more appropriate for a response)

I mean, I think you're forgetting the main reason for laughing at the ridiculous rhetoric when Obama was elected was because it was wrong, not because it was intrinsically rhetorically irresponsible. If it's accepted that a) Obama wasn't going to institute socialism and FEMA camps, and b) Trump is going to do something which will have a significant adverse impact on the life of a particular person, but it becomes pretty reasonable for that person to a) criticise rhetoric about the horrors of an Obama victory, and b) engage in rhetoric about the horrors of a Trump victory.

 

[Commodore]

To use the Trump example, he wants to put people on the Supreme Court who will roll back gay marriage decisions and presumably do nothing to protect gay rights. People in gay-friendly states will probably be fine depending on how much influence "electrocute the gays straight" Pence has. But people in anti-gay ones are going to be feeling extremely threatened. Similar story with regard to contraception and reproductive health.

That's not a very good example though. Gay rights and abortion are both protected by Supreme Court decisions, which are much, much, much harder to get overturned than regular old laws passed by Congress. This is evidenced by the fact that there have been plenty of opportunities for conservatives to get Roe v. Wade overturned and they have not succeeded. I assure you, gay rights will be fine despite Republican control of the government.

Trump is going to do something which will have a significant adverse impact on the life of a particular person,

That's not a given though. That's an assumption. It's also an assumption that loses a lot of weight in light of Trump's victory speech. Tonight we saw a much different Donald Trump than we saw during the campaigning. It may have come later than expected, but I think the pivot everyone thought he was going to make after the primaries, just started happening tonight. I don't think he really believed he would win, which may have influenced his behavior on the campaign trail. Now that he has won though, I think the reality set in for him that he needs to actually start acting like a president because he is the president now.

 

[Nexlev]

Fear and emotion aren't rational.

 

[Arwon]

That's not a very good example though. Gay rights and abortion are both protected by Supreme Court decisions, which are much, much, much harder to get overturned than regular old laws passed by Congress. This is evidenced by the fact that there have been plenty of opportunities for conservatives to get Roe v. Wade overturned and they have not succeeded. I assure you, gay rights will be fine despite Republican control of the government.

It's his influence over the supreme court, including explicit promises to pick people to overturn Roe and nation wide SSM (and the advanced age of those who would block that), which is the very sensible fear. With all branches of government under his control and soon multiple Supreme Court nominations, he's going to be one of the most powerful US presidents in a long time. Probably up there with Truman or FDR. Make no mistake, it's Trump's country now.

 

[Camikaze]

That's not a given though. That's an assumption. It's also an assumption that loses a lot of weight in light of Trump's victory speech. Tonight we saw a much different Donald Trump than we saw during the campaigning. It may have come later than expected, but I think the pivot everyone thought he was going to make after the primaries, just started happening tonight. I don't think he really believed he would win, which may have influenced his behavior on the campaign trail. Now that he has won though, I think the reality set in for him that he needs to actually start acting like a president because he is the president now.

It's definitely dependent upon who the person happens to be, but I think it's a far greater assumption to say that there are not going to be people who are adversely affected by Trump's victory. Like, will he not repeal Obamacare now? Is there any indication that he won't do that? Is it unreasonable for people to refuse to think that he's suddenly going to pivot and not get rid of it? And if you are someone who is going to be adversely impacted by that in a major way, is it then over the top to negatively react accordingly?

As for whether there will be a pivot, I think that's interestingly optimistic - after all this time of being extreme, the pivot is going to come after he's won? Now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress? Now, is that optimism a necessity after a political loss, or it instead reasonable to be pessimistic, given Trump's promises? I'd think the latter is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Arwon]

Also Republican control of both houses without a presidential veto is already scary for the big chunks of the country exposed to the consequences of their ideology, even without an unstable demagogue at the top.

 

[Commodore]

It's his influence over the supreme court, including explicit promises to pick people to overturn Roe and nation wide SSM (and the advanced age of those who would block that), which is the very sensible fear. With all branches of government under his control and soon multiple Supreme Court nominations, he's going to be one of the most powerful US presidents in a long time. Probably up there with Truman or FDR. Make no mistake, it's Trump's country now.

No, he's not. Reagan was the last Republican president to have all three branches under his control and Roe v. Wade still stands. And it will stand after Trump's presidency as well.

And if you are someone who is going to be adversely impacted by that in a major way, is it then over the top to negatively react accordingly?

Yes, because nobody has been negatively impacted by anything yet. Right now, any perceived positives or negatives of a Trump presidency is just speculation and assumptions. How about we all wait and see what the man actually does first before judging him to be the worst president ever?

 

[Camikaze]

Yes, because nobody has been negatively impacted by anything yet. Right now, any perceived positives or negatives of a Trump presidency is just speculation and assumptions. How about we all wait and see what the man actually does first before judging him to be the worst president ever?

Don't you think there's a question of probability in there, though? Like, we don't have to pre-emptively declare Trump to be the worst president ever, because there's no empirical evidence upon which to base such a historical claim. But surely reactions are more about the likely outcomes, and don't require actual results to be observed. Thus, it's possible to express an opinion, including an extremely negative one, about a policy, before that policy is implemented.

 

[Commodore]

Don't you think there's a question of probability in there, though? Like, we don't have to pre-emptively declare Trump to be the worst president ever, because there's no empirical evidence upon which to base such a historical claim. But surely reactions are more about the likely outcomes, and don't require actual results to be observed. Thus, it's possible to express an opinion, including an extremely negative one, about a policy, before that policy is implemented.

Expressing an opinion is one thing, throwing a tantrum by claiming you are going to leave the country or that the world is doomed is the kind of outrageous fear-mongering that created this whole mess in the first place. In the past few elections cooler heads have not prevailed and that crap needs to stop.

 

[Arwon]

No, he's not. Reagan was the last Republican president to have all three branches under his control and Roe v. Wade still stands. And it will stand after Trump's presidency as well.

That was a very different Republican Party.

 

[Nexlev]

Trump isn't even pro life.

 

[Camikaze]

Expressing an opinion is one thing, throwing a tantrum by claiming you are going to leave the country or that the world is doomed is the kind of outrageous fear-mongering that created this whole mess in the first place. In the past few elections cooler heads have not prevailed and that crap needs to stop.

How do you distinguish between the expression of an opinion and the throwing of a tantrum? e.g. is it possible for someone to express the opinion that they might now like to move to another country? Is it possible for someone to validly make an argument that a political victory endangers the world? Or is such an argument a priori incorrect.

 

[Commodore]

Trump isn't even pro life.

True. The concern is with Pence though. There's a good chance Trump is just going to be a figurehead with Pence making all the real political moves of his administration.

 

[Commodore]

How do you distinguish between the expression of an opinion and the throwing of a tantrum? e.g. is it possible for someone to express the opinion that they might now like to move to another country? Is it possible for someone to validly make an argument that a political victory endangers the world? Or is such an argument a priori incorrect.

Not incorrect, just unknown. And the difference between an opinion and a tantrum should be pretty clear. Saying "I think Trump will be harmful to the US because..." would be expressing an opinion. Saying "OMG Trump won I'm leaving the country!!!!!" is throwing a tantrum.

 

[Kozmos]

True. The concern is with Pence though. There's a good chance Trump is just going to be a figurehead with Pence making all the real political moves of his administration.

Depends. He'll have to play to his ego skillfully enough to let him make all the real choices. There's a chance Trump will pull a Nero and decide being liked by the people is more important than whatever agenda GOP has in store. We're at mercy of his mental arithmetic.