Americans of all persuasions now face a choice: in both celebration and despair there are different possible paths. It’s too early to say how Red will govern or to guess the form that Blue opposition will take, so for now we just wanted to curate the best expressions of feeling. Each of the articles below represents, perhaps, a different political future.
(We thought this was more useful than trying to explain why Trump won, but if you’re into that, the best we’ve seen is this roundup of theories and this data-driven analysis.)
Nobody likes to lose. So when your side loses an election, there’s huge social and psychological pressure to change your stance, to moderate what you believe so you don’t feel like a loser. Don’t do it. Things are worth believing and fighting for. Did you ever see a Trumpist moderate or express doubt? No. Trump spewed loathsome bigotry and lies and ignorance and promoted terrible and cruel policies, many of which he may actually implement. The fact he won big doesn’t mean you were wrong to oppose those things and condemn them. Nor does it mean that you can’t win an election in the future by opposing those things and condemning them. Even if it did mean that — even if America as a country has gone so irretrievably wretched that ignorance and bigotry are essential to electability now — then it would be time for something new and different rather than the Republic we have now.
Trump won; opposition to Trump lost. People will want you to abandon your beliefs because of that. They want you to bend the knee. Screw them. Evil has won before and will win again, and it’s not an excuse to shrug and go with the flow. It’s going to get harder to stand up for decent values. You will face scorn, official suppression, even violence. That’s not enough reason to stop.
Over the last decade, many of us who have moved away from the left have been explaining our concerns at length. We didn’t appreciate being told we were bigots for not wanting to defund the police, open the borders, or mandate racial quotas. We didn’t enjoy being called phobic for not wanting doctors to experiment on children with pseudoscientific transgender medicine. And we didn’t like being labeled conspiracy theorists for asking hard questions about covid policies, or why the FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security were involved in mass censorship. And we’re not suggesting those were the only reasons most voters or swing voters voted for Trump…
Through the Democratic process, voters have resoundingly rejected elites’ favored narratives about race, class, and immigration. So if anybody really wants to understand why so many of us, even if we have our criticisms of Trump, feel relief and vindication in this victory, they need to consider that it has more to do with the repudiation of totalitarianism than with Trump as a person or even his policies… Many of us who have felt persecuted for our views, even in small ways such as not feeling comfortable expressing our true feelings with friends and family, we now feel freer to speak our minds.
Ok, I've held it back for days..... The future is finally brighter with the Trump victory. Just imagine the possibilities now that we are unburdened by what has been and open to a future managed by brilliant leaders. My hope is that my Democrat friends will come along.
[T]hese are the principles I’d like to see the Democratic party embrace:
Economic self-interest for the working class includes both robust economic growth and a robust social safety net.
The government should prioritize maintaining functional public systems and spaces over tolerating anti-social behavior.
Climate change — and pollution more broadly — is a reality to manage, not a hard limit to obey.
We should, in fact, judge people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin, rejecting discrimination and racial profiling without embracing views that elevate anyone’s identity groups over their individuality.
Race is a social construct, but biological sex is not. Policy must acknowledge that reality and uphold people’s basic freedom to live as they choose.
Academic and nonprofit work does not occupy a unique position of virtue relative to private business or any other jobs.
Politeness is a virtue, but obsessive language policing alienates most people and degrades the quality of thinking.
Public services and institutions like schools deserve adequate funding, and they must prioritize the interests of their users, not their workforce or abstract ideological projects.
All people have equal moral worth, but democratic self-government requires the American government to prioritize the interests of American citizens.
Better Conflict Bulletin is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The best way to get lasting results is to actually get the left on board with them.
Hear me out.
For one, we are far less divided than the media and the politicians have led us to believe. When I have a real conversation with a left-leaning neighbor--a conversation that doesn't START with politics--I'm reminded of this.
I'm convinced there are swaths of common ground right in front of us that we've allowed ourselves to be blinded to. Be a rebel and step out where both sides are telling you not to. Explore. You can do this while keeping all your values…
Get with your Democrat friend and see which individual pieces you agree on. Play with it. See if you can put the pieces back together in a way where both of you get 80% of what you're looking for.
Left and right think differently. We SEE differently. Instead of always seeing the other side as obstacles, look at the opportunities. Find out at a deeper level what they are feeling, how they see things.
Is a policy of yours actually palatable to a Democrat but you're just selling it wrong? Take a business marketing approach and look at a variety of (truthful) ways you can present your ideas.
No, we're not going to align on everything. There are a few topics where we will simply never agree. But we will be surprised how much progress we can make. And even a little progress can be a lasting win.
Image of the Week
When you shade each state based on 2024 election results, the country looks pretty purple.
*sigh* I'm still far too angry for most of this - reading it triggered multiple internal rants.
I'll post a sanitized version of one of them, responding to your quote from Matthew Yglesias, which started off looking promising.
I quote: "5. Race is a social construct, but biological sex is not. Policy must acknowledge that reality and uphold people’s basic freedom to live as they choose."
This is self-contradictory, or worse.
The question from where I sit, is whether gendered behaviour should be enforced on everyone, based on the theory that if you have an innie between your legs, you have certain traits, and should be required to act on them; ditto, with different traits, if you have an outie. People should absolutely treat you differently depending on what's between your legs. After all, "biological sex" is not "a social construct". (We'll ignore for the moment the small group of people with ambiguous genitalia. Presumably they all have only one of the two sets of traits, and should be required to act on that basis.)
The "reality" of biological sex would be a non-issue, without the requirement to "act your biological sex". The fact that Yglesias raises this point about biological sex, particularly in comparison with race, means to me that he is comfortable with that requirement, and doesn't make a distinction between biological sex and gendered traits and preferences.
The tack on about "people’s basic freedom to live as they choose" is a red herring, or a reference to race. Women should be free to live as all women are supposed to choose to live: as broodmares, servants, nannies, and whores. Men should be free to live as all men are supposed to choose to live, as leaders, rulers, violence specialists, and specialists in physical strength. Because biological sex is real, that's what they all want, and anyone who claims otherwise, even about themselves, is wrong. Or at least, that's the argument I've heard repeatedly.
*sigh* I'm still far too angry for most of this - reading it triggered multiple internal rants.
I'll post a sanitized version of one of them, responding to your quote from Matthew Yglesias, which started off looking promising.
I quote: "5. Race is a social construct, but biological sex is not. Policy must acknowledge that reality and uphold people’s basic freedom to live as they choose."
This is self-contradictory, or worse.
The question from where I sit, is whether gendered behaviour should be enforced on everyone, based on the theory that if you have an innie between your legs, you have certain traits, and should be required to act on them; ditto, with different traits, if you have an outie. People should absolutely treat you differently depending on what's between your legs. After all, "biological sex" is not "a social construct". (We'll ignore for the moment the small group of people with ambiguous genitalia. Presumably they all have only one of the two sets of traits, and should be required to act on that basis.)
The "reality" of biological sex would be a non-issue, without the requirement to "act your biological sex". The fact that Yglesias raises this point about biological sex, particularly in comparison with race, means to me that he is comfortable with that requirement, and doesn't make a distinction between biological sex and gendered traits and preferences.
The tack on about "people’s basic freedom to live as they choose" is a red herring, or a reference to race. Women should be free to live as all women are supposed to choose to live: as broodmares, servants, nannies, and whores. Men should be free to live as all men are supposed to choose to live, as leaders, rulers, violence specialists, and specialists in physical strength. Because biological sex is real, that's what they all want, and anyone who claims otherwise, even about themselves, is wrong. Or at least, that's the argument I've heard repeatedly.