Probability Zero: After the Storm

I’m still seeing lots of calls from various pundits for national reconciliation after the election. At the New York Times television news analyst Frank Luntz contributes the following proposed victory speech:

“My fellow Americans, I stand before you tonight, humbled. There is no greater honor than to serve as president of the United States — and no greater responsibility.

“For many, this is a night of celebration. But I recognize and respect the millions who preferred a different path. And so I ask one last sacrifice from my supporters who have worked so hard to make history happen. Instead of your cheers, I ask for your silence so that I might speak directly to my opponent and to the people who are discouraged and disheartened with tonight’s results.

“Our political system has too often drowned you out. Our economic system has too often left you behind. But no more. Tonight, I hear you. I feel your frustration. Your hopes and dreams are just as important as those of the people in this room. Your concerns are just as real. I get it, and I will act on it.

“Throughout this election, we’ve said things to each other that were harsh, negative and inappropriate. Our divisive words too often distract us from the challenges we need to solve. From failing schools to rapidly rising health care costs, from immigration to Social Security, the challenges we face as individuals, as communities and as a country are immense and demand the best minds and best ideas from across the political spectrum. In the months ahead, my administration will set the example. We are more than just Democrats. We are more than just Republicans. We are Americans.

“And so I ask my supporters to have empathy and understanding for those who are commiserating across town and across the country tonight. And let us all tonight pledge allegiance to one nation, indivisible. I’ve always promised to fight for you, but that doesn’t mean we need to fight against them. Let’s mark tonight by finding our common ground and moving forward together.”

while at the Washington Post Michael Gerson takes a somewhat different tack:

Who among our political leaders is calling for mutual understanding and practicing it? This would involve the concession of truth on both sides.

It is true that the United States has two economies — one for those who have the skills favored by globalization and one for those who don’t. At the bottom of the Great Recession in 2010, the unemployment rate for people without a high school degree was 15 percent. For college graduates, it was 4.7 percent. A portion of America is in a more or less permanent recession, no matter what the stock market does.

It is true many of the beneficiaries of globalization have little contact with those who bear its costs.

It is true that many blue-collar and rural men and women have witnessed their way of life decline, have seen the sources of their deepest beliefs dismissed by the broader culture and increasingly feel (in Arlie Russell Hochschild’s phrase) like “strangers in their own land.”

But it is also true that for some Americans, the idealization of a lost America has little appeal. If you are an African American, or a gay person, or someone in a racially mixed marriage, or a woman seeking a leadership role in society, your life has improved greatly over the past few decades. For many Americans, the full promise of liberty has arrived lately.

I would reckon the likelihood for either a genuine plea for understanding and temperance or truth-telling as roughly zero.

Actions speak, too. If a victorious Hillary Clinton names people other than those in her inner circle of friends and advisors to positions of power, especially her White House Chief of Staff, there is a real possibility of reconciliation. If a victorious Donald Trump constructs a national unity government consisting of leaders from both major political parties, there’s some possibility of unity.

Otherwise this election will be the beginning rather than the end of the discord.

When a marriage is in distress there are only a handful of possibilities. They can reconcile, which generally requires both parties to abandon some grievance. They can divorce and go their separate ways. They can maintain a cold, angry truce in which both parties wage a quiet passive-aggressive war against the other. I’ve actually witnessed that and it’s ghastly.

Or they can start waging war with every resource they can bring to bear.

I think this election has revealed that we’ve reached that point of distress. Which of the alternative paths are followed is to be determined but I wouldn’t give you any odds on either of the first two.