The Three Liberals* You Meet After an Election

I am not going to pore over the exit polls and election results. You can read plenty of that analysis elsewhere. Instead, I’ve taken a few days to step back and observe. My goal was to get a 30,000-feet view of what happened and where we go from here, as a country generally, and as liberals in particular. The view is still murky, but a few themes have emerged.

The Outsiders

Amongst my liberal friends, two general camps have emerged, with some overlap between the two. One group, the #NotMyPresident camp, are the ones you see out in the street on the news. They are taking the principled position that we should not legitimize a candidate for office who gets there the way Donald Trump did, with lies and hate. This is a perfectly legitimate position. The most visible member of this group is Michael Moore.

The Unifiers

On the other side is the #Unite camp, made up of more moderate Democrats, urged reconciliation and acceptance from the start. Not much needs to be said about this group. Secretary Clinton and President Obama are part of this camp.

The Pragmatists

The overlapping group, the pragmatic #RespectTheOffice camp, do not like Trump and are just as upset as the first group, but they will still accept the result. They will also work with the Trump Administration on issues where there is common ground, and will oppose him on everything else. This approach runs the risk of giving the Trump Administration political victories and capital that can be used for less savory efforts. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have embraced this approach.

I don’t know which group is correct. I see my friends falling into these categories. None of them are wrong.

As a pragmatist, mediator and firm believer in consensus-building, and as someone more comfortable working within institutions than assailing them from the outside, the pragmatic engagement approach is an easy fit. My family is traditionally Methodist. I’m not. I don’t have much use for organized religion and I don’t particularly know much about Methodism, but I have always liked this saying, often improperly attributed to John Wesley:

Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.

Imagine my surprise to hear this in Hillary Clinton’s DNC acceptance speech!

What do we do going forward?

Several good ideas have emerged, including these from Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

Michael Moore:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT):

To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA):

So let me be 100% clear about this. When President-Elect Trump wants to take on these issues, when his goal is to increase the economic security of middle class families, then count me in. I will put aside our differences and I will work with him to accomplish that goal. I offer to work as hard as I can and to pull as many people as I can into this effort. If Trump is ready to go on rebuilding economic security for millions of Americans, so am I and so are a lot of other people — Democrats and Republicans.

As I write this a week out from the election, I don’t have any answers. Right now, it is probably enough to know that we will all have to make politics a much more central part of our lives. This time it is personal!

Writing at The Intercept last week, Jon Schwarz laid out a positive plan for the coming struggle:

  1. If you can, make politics one of the centers of your life.
  2. White liberals must step up right now in the right way.
  3. We need a story.
  4. We don’t need a third party, we just need a party.
  5. We need non-corporate media.
  6. Be not downhearted.
  7. Barack Obama gets one day off.
  8. Be good to yourself and everyone else.

I think I can get behind all of those. Are you in?


*I’m a liberal. You probably are, too. Sure, the term “progressive” gets lots of play and is the hot new thing, and the L-word has been much maligned by the now-moribund conservative movement, but I’m not going to let someone else define my terms for me. I’m a liberal, I believe in liberal ideals and programs, and I’m going to own it.

Election Season Again

Come on ye childhood heroes!
Won’t you rise up from the pages of your comic-books
your super crooks
and show us all the way.
Well! Make your will and testament. Won’t you?
Join your local government.
We’ll have Superman for president
let Robin save the day.

It is election season again, and we have a big one open locally: Magisterial District Judge. This is the “minor judiciary” in Pennsylvania. A friend of mine, attorney Kelley Gillette-Walker is running, so I am somewhat biased. (Incidentally, she is the first Republican I’ve ever supported for any office. As a lifelong Democrat, this is A Big Deal.) Since judges are technically non-partisan, she is cross-filed as a Republican and Democratic candidate. (Local voting information is available here.)

I have never missed an election. Even when I lived in England for nine months, I still managed to vote for Al Gore and *cough* *gack* Joe Lieberman. Needless to say, we get a lot of campaign mail. One we got this past week struck a chord with me — and not in a good way.

Steven Smith, a local mortgage settlement broker, has decided to throw his hat into the ring. You can see a PDF of the letter I got in the mail here. From the letter:

I stand firm in my religious convictions, I walk in my commitments, and I remain transparent to those around me.

Somebody is pandering to the religious vote. This is not a bad approach in this area. If Dayton, Tennessee is the buckle of the bible belt, then Central PA is that hanging bit you can never seem to tuck into the belt loop on your dress pants.

I have no idea what “walk in my commitments” and “remain transparent” mean, but I can smell Fundamentalist code words from a hundred meters. I wasn’t raised in that particular faith tradition, but I did have enough religious exposure growing up to have an allergic reaction to such things. What I do know is that the Magisterial District Judgeship is a secular post in a secular government. I just hope all of the candidates recognize that and, should they win the election, act accordingly. I am fine with a judge having religious faith, but that can’t take he place of judgement, reasoning, and the fair interpretation and application of the law.