This article was originally written a week after the U.S. 2016 Elections.
The 2016 U.S. election aftermath has had me glued to social media. Many--even those in an exultant state--seemed to wander the web in a post-election hang over, wrestling and debating the realities of a presidency that few (even of Trump's own followers) had predicted.
Whatever else one may say of the results, it is certain that out of the shell-shock and frenzy has come a flurry of incisive commentary. Arguably this commentary has been sifting down throughout the U.S. election cycle, but suddenly in a few days' time, it was condensed into a deluge of thought. Friends who had last used their Facebooks to look up their exes were now posting and commenting on articles and opinions, taking part in a form of public dialogue that, though often discounted, can be invaluable. For the first time in the whole election cycle, my feed looked diverse; opinion came in from all sides.
Since awaking last Wednesday, I have read too many post-election (and even pre-election) articles to count, from a variety of sources and sides. I have tried to avoid those that rely on click-bate and pander to more base instincts, but also haven't avoided articles and commentary that seem to oppose my own ideas.
Here's a list of a few articles that have caused me to think and rethink in the last nine days:
1. There has been much name calling, and much ado about name calling, during this election and in the aftermath. Central to the issue of sweeping generalizations is the question of whether or not people can indeed change strongly-held beliefs, and if so, how. The Washington Post's article "White flight of Derek Black" is one such example of changing minds.
2. Along the lines of the above: CNN's Van Jones visited Trump supporters leading up to the elections.
3.. In a tweet expressing his discomfort with the "Not My President" movement, Shadi Hasid referenced a piece he wrote for The Atlantic back in May, discussing the possibility of a Trump presidency and the issue of respecting the democratic process even when it seems to have self-defeating aims. (Shadi's Twitter is a good feed to follow for more thoughts on liberal vs. illiberal thought.)
4. Cracked.com has put out an article discussing the rise of Trump in terms of the 48% and the dominating red states (or, as was pointed out by David Wong, red counties).
5. Malak Chabkoun wrote an opinion piece for Al Jazeera discussing the entitlement issue of wanting to flee the United States over a disliked president.
6. There was another womanizing businessman who all but crotch-grabbed his way to office in recent history: enter Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy for nearly two decades. Is Italy's recent history America's future?
7. Maine voted to incorporate Ranked Choice Voting, a voting system that allows voters to rank candidates instead of voting for just one. As people make sense of the fact that a highly polarizing candidate, even among his own party, has lost the popular vote and won the presidency, RCV offers a potential solution.
8. What should political journalists do differently? The Economist has an introspective piece, written by their North American editor, which states that: "Next time I want to read more about non-voters. They, not the 60m who voted for Mr Trump, are the silent majority." This is an interesting thought; the idea that, while there were more votes for Trump than many predicted, there were even more people who never showed up to vote at all. What do they think about elections and why aren't they motivated to get to the polls?
In many cases, to be a journalist, and even to be a politician, is to attempt soothesaying; it is to determine what is right by looking back and forecasting into the less known. When it comes to politicians, we discuss with derision how they "change with the times" and waffle depending on polled opinion. But are politicians meant to lead public opinion or be a barometer of it? The most fair answer probably lies between both: they lead a constituency while simultaneously representing it.
The same could be said of journalists and pundits: to test the waters of public opinion and report on it, while simultaneously treading carefully on the responsibility that is presenting information to and about the masses, is the height of why journalism exists. If journalists truly believe their job is to report, then their job equally is to attempt to understand that which they report on. This is not to agree with all the issues brought up, and this is to not force the issues brought up to agree with themselves, stifling debate and suffocating perceived wayward opinion. And, we can hope, people who write about opinion or attempt to shape public discourse use deductive and inductive reasoning to come to conclusions and stand their ground. This leads, inevitably, to those who get it wrong. The best we can do is learn to critically think and reason through not only our own ideas, but others'.
These articles are a good place to start.