Post Election Sobriety



By Sunny Fry

 

Years ago, I had an online friend, a math professor at Berkeley, originally a citizen of Mexico, and an avid, informed observer of the Supreme Court. He was a little to the left on the political spectrum, but in an agreeable way, perfectly willing to have a discussion without assuming a moral failing on the part of someone who thought differently than he. I emailed him after the Bush/Gore elections, because I was interested in his take on the whole issue of the Supreme Court getting involved. Unlike many on the left, who characterized the process as SCOTUS electing our president, Arturo said he thought it was inevitable that the issues finally went to the high court, and that while he didn’t love the ruling, he thought it was appropriate that some body finally made a final decision.

 More to the point, he said he was encouraged at the entire process -- that the American people waited for the decision, and even if they didn’t like it, just moved forward. In Mexico, he said too often if a vocal minority didn’t like election results, they would take to the streets until the powers-that-be capitulated in some form or fashion to their demands. Which seems a lousy way to run any kind of representative election process.

I thought of him recently, given the current political climate in the United States. Not, perhaps, that we’re yet taking to the streets to change election outcomes, but mob noise doesn’t always have to come from a physical gathering of rock-throwing rabble-rousers. In many ways, sometimes it appears we’ve checked our minds at the door, and failed to consider the circumstances as they exist. And the noisiest among us, no matter where on the political spectrum, drive an inordinate amount of policy.

We say we want a balanced budget and reduced debt, but some of us refuse to consider that we all might have to pay a little more to get there from here. We say we want to cut government – a worthwhile goal, actually – but don’t want the services we consider important to be touched. We don’t want the current health care bill, but we want “some” health care bill – something to address what everybody knows is a growing problem. We want immigration “fixed,” but are divided about how. Some mean round up every brown person in the country and ship ’em to the border, leaving aside whether that itself means a huge expansion of government, what risks that poses to the rights of legal immigrants and brown citizens, and what happens if Mexico refuses to accept them. Some mean completely eliminating borders altogether, and giving full citizenship to anyone who wants it – leaving aside what it means when a nation and people are completely overwhelmed by sheer volume, and what that means in terms of crime, public services, and blight. We don’t want government making decisions about health care, but we don’t want hospitals to be able to turn away people if they can’t pay; and we don’t want anybody touching Medicare.

But the minute someone tries to engage in anything like a realistic conversation about any of it, they’re either a RINO or a DINO. A sellout. And as the last election demonstrated, at risk, particularly during the party nominations.

The latest kerfluffle regarding body scans at airports is illustrative. We collectively face an enemy who’s demonstrated a fondness for suicide missions involving mass transit. We also, collectively, have determined that profiling is wrong – and probably, at least in the US, less effective anyhow than somewhere like Israel. Which leaves as the only solution putting everyone through security procedures – but we don’t want that either. Or at least, a vocal minority of us don’t. Apparently polls taken show that most people on a plane have no problem with everybody getting checked for weapons. That whole stupid mass outcry of “don’t touch my junk” just makes me want to raise one sardonic eyebrow and say, “Take a train.” Still, the circumstances which exist – well, exist. And no amount of jumping up and hollering is going to make them magically disappear.

As we mature, most of us begin to understand that the world does not revolve around us, and that just because we want a thing doesn’t automatically make it either possible or a good idea. Most of us, by the time we’re 15 or so, have figured out that if the first rolling of eyes and stomping off to a room doesn’t get you what you want, it’s probably time to figure out how to negotiate. It might be a good idea if we revisit that lesson.

 

 More to the point, he said he was encouraged at the entire process -- that the American people waited for the decision, and even if they didn’t like it, just moved forward. In Mexico, he said too often if a vocal minority didn’t like election results, they would take to the streets until the powers-that-be capitulated in some form or fashion to their demands. Which seems a lousy way to run any kind of representative election process.

I thought of him recently, given the current political climate in the United States. Not, perhaps, that we’re yet taking to the streets to change election outcomes, but mob noise doesn’t always have to come from a physical gathering of rock-throwing rabble-rousers. In many ways, sometimes it appears we’ve checked our minds at the door, and failed to consider the circumstances as they exist. And the noisiest among us, no matter where on the political spectrum, drive an inordinate amount of policy.

We say we want a balanced budget and reduced debt, but some of us refuse to consider that we all might have to pay a little more to get there from here. We say we want to cut government – a worthwhile goal, actually – but don’t want the services we consider important to be touched. We don’t want the current health care bill, but we want “some” health care bill – something to address what everybody knows is a growing problem. We want immigration “fixed,” but are divided about how. Some mean round up every brown person in the country and ship ’em to the border, leaving aside whether that itself means a huge expansion of government, what risks that poses to the rights of legal immigrants and brown citizens, and what happens if Mexico refuses to accept them. Some mean completely eliminating borders altogether, and giving full citizenship to anyone who wants it – leaving aside what it means when a nation and people are completely overwhelmed by sheer volume, and what that means in terms of crime, public services, and blight. We don’t want government making decisions about health care, but we don’t want hospitals to be able to turn away people if they can’t pay; and we don’t want anybody touching Medicare.

But the minute someone tries to engage in anything like a realistic conversation about any of it, they’re either a RINO or a DINO. A sellout. And as the last election demonstrated, at risk, particularly during the party nominations.

The latest kerfluffle regarding body scans at airports is illustrative. We collectively face an enemy who’s demonstrated a fondness for suicide missions involving mass transit. We also, collectively, have determined that profiling is wrong – and probably, at least in the US, less effective anyhow than somewhere like Israel. Which leaves as the only solution putting everyone through security procedures – but we don’t want that either. Or at least, a vocal minority of us don’t. Apparently polls taken show that most people on a plane have no problem with everybody getting checked for weapons. That whole stupid mass outcry of “don’t touch my junk” just makes me want to raise one sardonic eyebrow and say, “Take a train.” Still, the circumstances which exist – well, exist. And no amount of jumping up and hollering is going to make them magically disappear.

As we mature, most of us begin to understand that the world does not revolve around us, and that just because we want a thing doesn’t automatically make it either possible or a good idea. Most of us, by the time we’re 15 or so, have figured out that if the first rolling of eyes and stomping off to a room doesn’t get you what you want, it’s probably time to figure out how to negotiate. It might be a good idea if we revisit that lesson.