The Ferries Wheel

So, I watched the inauguration.

The sky did not fall, as balefully predicted by some, nor did the heavens open with a voice proclaiming “This is my beloved Trump, in whom I am well pleased,” as prayerfully hoped for by others.

As for the inauguration speech itself, it seemed largely a rehash of prior Trump stump speeches, especially the “Darth Vader” diatribe at the Republican Convention. When the most memorable phrase in the latest iteration is “American carnage,” and an apologist is reduced to explaining why describing it as “bleak” is more positive than describing it as “dark,” it is pretty obvious that it was, indeed, a dark view of the state of the nation, albeit a view possibly shared by many of those in attendance.

Then came Saturday. Massive rallies across the nation and around the world – even Antarctica – sent an unmistakable message that there is a difference of opinion among Americans as to what is desirable in order to make America great, or allow it to continue being so.

How, or if, the new president received the message is largely unknown, although future tweets will probably clarify the matter. What is known is that, in the face of unprecedented numbers in the streets, in front of a memorial to Americans who died in the service of their country, a president fixated on numbers ignored them in order to carp about a media conspiracy to underestimate the number of folks attending his inauguration the day before.

All in all, it was enough to send disheartened Democrats to bed, once again dreaming of sugar plum fairies and a Trump defeat down the road.

Not so fast.

To begin with, Donald Trump is not the greatest danger to those things progressives hold dear.

Without a compliant Congress, what a president can do on their own is largely circumscribed by the Constitution, unless that honored document is ignored as well. Not only is the new Congress compliant, it is more ideologically driven, and more radical, than the president himself.

In the House of Representatives, a Republican majority sits entrenched within gerrymandered districts, buoyed by unlimited campaign funds sufficient to fend off all but the strongest of challengers. In the Senate, 23 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats, will be defending their seats in 2018. Only eight Republican senators are at risk. In both chambers, a Democratic breakthrough in the mid-term elections is unlikely.

Which brings up the second fly in the ointment. To have more than a snowball’s chance of beating the odds in 2018, the Democratic Party needs to become relevant to a majority of our citizens.

It cannot do so by maintaining the existing status quo. Sorry, Nancy. Pay attention, Chuck.

Democrats need to come to grips with the fact that Donald Trump is president not because Barack Obama was not on the ticket, or Hillary’s campaign sometimes made a dead flounder appear more electrifying by comparison. Trump is president because enough of the people (who voted) rejected the Democrat message to swing the Electoral College in his favor – or just didn’t hear a coherent message from the Dems beyond being critical of Donald Trump’s temperament and qualifications to be president. It’s not enough to be against. You must clearly offer something to be for.

Venture out from the great cities. Leave the interstate, and take the two-lane. Spend some time in the small towns rather than just passing through on the way to somewhere else. Listen to the folks whose skills are becoming increasingly superfluous in a rapidly changing economy. And yes, count the shuttered factories, both large and small, that once supported a middle class.

Listen to the voters who, collectively, cleaned your clock – not by much, but by more than enough.

From that conversation, speak to their needs and aspirations. If the party that once prided itself in representing ordinary Americans, male and female, cannot come up with better responses to the challenges we face than a platoon of plutocrats holed up in Washington, D.C., or wintering at some exclusive resort, well, frankly, Democrats don’t deserve to make a comeback.

Nor will they.

With almost two-thirds of the voters in Howard County (63.40%) having voted for Donald Trump, it is incumbent upon those of us in the minority to recognize an inconvenient fact because, although sometimes inconvenient, facts are facts.

Let’s get the big one out of the way.

Under the Constitution, a candidate who receives 270 votes in the Electoral College wins. Donald Trump did that; therefore, Donald Trump is the lawful 45th president of these fractured United States.

Period. The end.

“How” a candidate reaches that number is largely irrelevant. The voter is the ultimate arbiter of what input they choose to believe or disbelieve. Multiple factors influence a vote. In a troubling twist, it appears some of those factors may even originate from a foreign source bent on influencing the outcome, but again, the Constitution relies upon the voter to separate the wheat from the chaff. The voter’s right to make that determination should be respected, even if the wisdom of the outcome is open to question and debate.

The past is history, and history will make its own judgments in due time. What matters is the future.

There may, however, be a problem there upon which outgoing Vice President Joe Biden, in his inimical way, has put his finger: “Grow up, Donald. Grow up. Time to be an adult. You’re president. Show us what you have.”

Vice President Biden was highlighting another inconvenient fact: There is a difference between campaigning and governing, and the new president has yet to demonstrate that he has made that transition, or even if he is capable of doing so.

Presidents don’t engage in petulant Twitter outbursts every time someone says something they do not like. Grow some thicker skin. Criticism goes with the territory and, as they say, if you can’t stand the heat …

Speaking of Twitters, a tweet does not a policy make. It is unseemly watching surrogates bouncing around like grease on a hot griddle trying to explain – or explain away – the latest tempest stirred up in 140 characters or less.

The folks who put their faith in you, and the rest of us as well, deserve better. Americans deserve coherent policies expressed coherently. For the most part, they are still waiting.

There are those who will fulminate that it is unfair to be critical even before an inauguration. In most cases they would be right. However, this time around, the new president ignored precedent, chose to pretend to be president, and attempted to exercise the prerogatives of one, starting on Nov. 9, 2016, and not Jan. 20, 2017.

Those two months-plus count against any “honeymoon” to which a new president is entitled by virtue of victory. It can’t be both ways. It is more than enough time for first impressions to solidify into final judgments based upon what the new president says and does.

But to be fair, there are four more years to grow into the job, and do it well.

Or are there?

Because there is another inconvenient fact.

While millions of ordinary Americans believe in you, and in your promise to “Make America Great Again,” a goodly number of Republican congressmen and senators are not as sanguine. Remember, they were the subject of your “plain talk” almost as often as was your opponent. They didn’t appreciate it then, and they haven’t forgotten it now.

Slowly, and grudgingly, they came into line because you were seen as a means to an end. With the outpouring of enthusiastic support you engendered, by whatever means, you were seen by many Republicans in Congress to be the prophet who would lead their party to the White House.

And you did.

And they don’t need you anymore.

They have, in the person of the incoming vice president, a solid and reliable social conservative who is much more to their liking. Moreover, the incoming vice president has had his eye on the Oval Office for a goodly portion of his political career.

Are the following scenarios likely? No. Are they possible? Yes.

The underlying premise is that you have crossed swords with your erstwhile political “allies” once too often.

With your widespread business interests, and your unwillingness to fully divest yourself from them, you are one scandal away from a House investigation, and you know how the House loves investigations. Whether a “high crime or misdemeanor” has been committed is solely up to the House of Representatives to determine.

It only takes a majority of the House to impeach, and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict.

Hard numbers to come by, but not impossible, especially should the Democrat minority vote with their insurgent Republican colleagues.

Finally, should you ever get around to reading the Constitution as Mr. Kahn suggested, you might pay particular attention to the 25th Amendment, which provides an alternate provision for the removal of a president outside of the impeachment process.

Is any of this likely? Of course not. However, you are the president, and, as Uncle Joe said, it is time to be an adult and show America what you have.

William Shakespeare put the following words into the mouth of another embattled leader, Henry IV: “Uneasy the head that wears a crown.”

You are wearing the American equivalent.

Sleep well, my prince.

It seems like old times. Almost.

To those of us who grew to adulthood during the so-called “Cold War,” it all has a familiar feel about it.

Those rascally Russkies are alleged by every U.S. intelligence agency, the FBI, and probably the Salvation Army and Boy Scouts of America as well, as having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar – yet again.

This time around, the skullduggery has nothing to do with cloak-and-dagger spies, or secret blueprints on microfilm. The world of espionage has largely moved past such antiquated methodologies. The chicanery du jour is to muck about in the virtual world of the internet – ironically given birth by our friends at the Pentagon.

Specifically, a couple of Russian intelligence agencies apparently left their cyber fingerprints all over the hacking of the Democrat National Committee and the personal emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. Parenthetically, what is it about Democrats and security anyway? You would think that after Watergate, not to mention Hillary’s email travails, they’d learn something about protecting their communications.

But I digress.

The purpose of the exercise seems to have been an attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election. No evidence has come to light that vote totals were manipulated, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a cumulative negative effect from weekly releases of information selected from the purloined trove for its ability to damage the Democratic cause. “Purloined” is a fancy word for “stolen.”

A media scrum salivating for salacious material to fill the news cycle can be played like a violin – and was. The source, or even the accuracy, of the material clearly was not a major concern. Lead off with the disclaimer that “the accuracy of the material cannot be independently verified” and everything, and anything, can be reported without further confirmation. And, for many in the audience, if it’s reported it must be true, right? The old Soviets were masters at such misinformation and disinformation. If it suited their purposes, they could say the sun rose in the west, set in the east, and do so with a straight face. Their successors aren’t bad at it either. The U.S. news hands who dealt frequently with the Soviets of old are either having a belly laugh, or turning over in their graves, as they witness the gullibility of their successors in the Fourth Estate.

So what to do?

President Obama has made the traditional first move. “X” number of “diplomats” and their families are sent back to the motherland. Close a couple of Russian “facilities’ and name some names – none of whom are likely to be stupid enough to ever come within spitting distance of U.S. law enforcement.

The traditional counter move would be for Uncle Vladimir to send a corresponding number of U.S. diplomats packing, close a couple of U.S.-operated dachas, and name some folks persona non grata.

Over time, each side would then quietly allow back an increased number of credentialed “diplomats” and allow the reopening of foreign-operated “facilities.” Eventually, an equilibrium is reached that looks suspiciously like what existed ante bellum.

But Uncle Vladimir is too wily to do the expected. He has opted to largely delay his response until the next administration comes into office on Jan. 20.

Which puts the new president in a world of hurt.

Should he leave the sanctions in place, he endangers his relationship with Uncle Vladimir, whom he apparently sees as a soulmate, and who is key to the resetting of the U.S.-Russian relationship the new president has publicly promised.

Should he lift the sanctions, it is almost an apology for their implementation in the first place, which is not unlike apologizing for being the victim. That won’t fly even in his own party.

To date, the new president has either disputed the evidence put forward by the entire intelligence community, or, in effect, encouraged the country to “move along, nothing to see here.” Neither approach is going to wash in the long run.

What he should consider as a first act after his inauguration is to come out in favor of the appointment of an independent, non-partisan commission to get to the bottom of this attack. Think Watergate. Think 9-11.

Nothing will add to the legitimacy of his presidency more than an unmistakable demonstration that he has nothing to fear about the outcome of such an investigation. Nothing will bring that legitimacy into question more than a perception of apparent reluctance to ferret out the truth.

Your move, Mr. President.

I was a newly minted high school freshman when the Cuban Missile Crisis brewed up in the fall of 1962. As tensions mounted, I remember serious debates in the lunch room concerning who was going to “get nuked” first. I was attending a high school in Indianapolis (Long story. Go Trojans! Fight! Win!), so the rivalry between the big city kids and the small-town rube from Kokomo was intense.

My friends from Indy argued in favor of the Finance Center at Fort Benjamin Harrison in Lawrence, Indiana, as being the premiere target for obliteration in the Hoosier state. The theory, as I recall, was that if the Russkies could take out the bean counters, the United States military would be cut off at the knees, and the entire national defense would collapse forthwith.

I, on the other hand, took the position that, as impressive as that case might be, it was in error. My ace in the hole was Bunker Hill AFB, a short 10 miles or so up the road and home to the 305^th Bombardment Wing and its battle-ready group of B-58 Hustler bombers. Capable of supersonic speed, and designed to deliver a nuclear payload, it seemed obvious that in order to avoid a retaliatory strike, this critical component of the country’s defense shield would have to be taken out first, combat-trained accountants notwithstanding.

I was pretty sure that if the Russian missiles were on target, what with ground zero being, as I said, about 10 miles or so up the road, I was pretty sure I wouldn’t be vaporized, although Soviet targeting technology could be bit dicey at times. Depending on wind direction, it was possible Kokomo might avoid the worst of the immediate plume of fallout, but admittedly, the longer term prognosis was murky to say the least.

As history records, cooler heads prevailed, and determining which was the more viable of the two competing visions of Hoosier Armageddon became unimportant. Nevertheless, even today, there is disruption in the Force when the leader of North Korea, for example, threatens use of the nuclear option, even though his most reliable delivery option would be to hide the weapon in a shipment of kimchi mailed UPS or Fed Express Overnight to his intended target.

Thankfully, that wacko aside, leaders of the major nuclear powers have progressed beyond treating nukes as some kind of giant firecracker that must, because they exist, have some practical use.

That is, until a few days ago, when President-elect Trump took to the tweeter sphere to muse about expanding our nuclear capacity. If this should cause a new arms race, bring it on, because Team Trump would kick gluteus maximus in any case.

No one is comparing the 45^th president of these United States with Dear Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un. He, that is Dear Respected Comrade, while living the good life killing off relatives he doesn’t like, is certifiably more than a little unbalanced. Likewise, no one is claiming anyone aspires to make this country the North Korea of North America in terms of unpredictability.

However.

When on record as being unwilling to take anything off the table, and seeing unpredictability and brinksmanship as useful diplomatic tools, one should not be surprised when such pronouncements have a destabilizing nervous reaction among members of the international community, who then might feel the need to prepare for the worst scenario.

A phalanx of apologists walking back the tweets might limit the damage, but damage there will be. Rather than having the necessity of reinterpreting what has been consigned to the ether, it might be better to think the thing through before consigning anything to the ether in the first place

Let’s face it. Our new president is an apprentice at this game. He will learn, but he does not have the luxury of time. On Jan. 20, 2017, at roughly noon, he is thrown into the deep end without water wings.

Chest thumping and braggadocio in a president-elect is one thing. The same in a president can ignite a chain of events and misunderstandings that can lead to 14-year-old kids in the heartland debating over their peanut butter and jelly sandwiches who is going to get incinerated first.

Nobody wants that.

By the way, I still think nuking Bunker Hill AFB was the more likely of the two options presented. Happily, we never found out.

We trust out new president to keep it that way.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

The opening line of Charles Dickens’ 1859 novel “A Tale of Two Cities” bears an uncanny similarity to the situation existing in our own country today. According to a recent poll, and being reminded, after they blew the election forecasts, to take poll results with several grains of salt, 55 percent of Americans are concerned with the future of the country under a Donald Trump presidency. Forty-five percent are optimistic that the country will prosper under The Donald.

It can’t get much closer, or much further apart, depending on how you look at it.

As for yours truly, let’s just say that since Nov. 8, I have become an aficionado of crow – baked, broiled, boiled, fricasseed, barbequed, and pureed. Rest assured, it does not taste like chicken.

There comes a time when you have to move on, and I’m there, even if means admitting to some inconvenient facts. The primary inconvenience is that The Donald won the election and is the rightful president of these shredded United States. Down, fellow progressives! Yes, I know Hillary won the popular vote by something over 2.8 million votes, but there is another inconvenient fact to bear in mind.

One of the reasons the framers came up with the much maligned Electoral College was to handicap regional candidates in favor of candidates who could muster broader national support. As some analysts have posited, if with a bit of obfuscation, her 2.8 million vote plurality is entirely the result of a Clinton landslide victory in California. Take California out of the equation and Mr. Trump carried the rest of the country by a 1.4 million vote margin.

Bottom line, the Electoral College operated exactly how the framers intended it to operate, even if the result is a bitter pill to over half the country’s voters.

In a representative democracy, if your candidate comes up short, you suck it up and support the winner – until the next time. As the ever gracious First Lady Michelle Obama said of President-elect Trump, “If he succeeds, we all succeed.”

Indeed, all Americans should hope that our new president matures beyond merely being tweeter-in-chief. Time will tell.

However, support is not carte blanche.

Donald Trump did not run a traditional campaign. He reveled in his unconventionality and unpredictability. If a candidate successfully runs as an insurgent, there is a price to be paid.

As we transition to this new administration, there should be skepticism about attempts to get on board with, or “normalize,” our new president – to portray him as fitting within accepted presidential parameters and norms with which the media and public are comfortable. Candidate Trump aggressively promised to be a president unlike any of his predecessors. He should be taken at his word. And if, in fact, he intends to remake the office, fair but intense scrutiny should be the order of the day. The public has a right to expect that he adjust to the presidency, not that the presidency be adjusted to uniquely suit him. Presidents are transitory tenants of the office. The office itself belongs to the people.

There is nothing wrong intrinsically with breaking the mold, but it bears watching. As Ronald Reagan commented, ironically quoting a Russian proverb, “trust, but verify.” In this case, trust President Trump to act within the Constitution, and in the interests of the American people, but pay very close attention to what he says, and more importantly, to what he does. Just in case.

It is possible, especially with a compliant Congress, to gut the substance of America while maintaining its outer appearance.

It has happened elsewhere. There is no guarantee it couldn’t happen here.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this column, and which tack to take.

Last time out, I got spanked pretty badly a few days later in the Letters to the Editor by a lady in Greentown. That’s OK. If you’re a progressive writing in a county that voted 64 percent for President-Elect Trump, had two times as many straight-ticket Republican ballots cast than Democrat, and elected every Republican on the local ballot by wide margins, you have to expect some blow back – some deserved and some perhaps not so much. As they say, if you can’t stand the heat …

It serves no purpose to rehash the past, unless what can be learned from the past can be used to constructively affect the future. For progressives, there are more than a few lessons that should be taken to heart.

First of all, a groundswell can trump a ground game. The Clinton campaign was run as professionally as any in history. It had internal polls, tracking polls, polls of polls, and probably the odd barber pole thrown in as well. It knew where its voters were, and precisely how many votes it needed to put Hillary in the White House. They had a well-funded field operation, and state-of-the-art political advertising.

What the corporate campaign lacked was not tangibles, but something intaengendered in his supporters. ngible. It was so buttoned down it lacked soul. It lacked the emotional response Trump As that enthusiasm swelled, the Clinton campaign, having failed to take the phenomenon seriously at first, had no effective response. The groundswell beat the ground game.

Secondly, you can’t win a campaign talking primarily about why a voter should not vote for the other guy. You need to give them some reason to vote for you.

The Clinton campaign had its policy proposals and issue statements, but they couldn’t package them in a way that was easily digestible by the electorate. Sure, you could go the website and read a position paper, but “build that wall” or “drain the swamp” speaks to issues-by-shorthand in a much more effective way in this age of Twitter where pithy becomes a substitute for substance. President-elect Trump won the battle of social media in a landslide.

For an entire campaign, voters heard about Mr. Trump’s inadequacies and lack of qualifications for the job. Thing is, Trump’s base didn’t care, and Hillary’s campaign failed to convince them that they should. Throw in the last-minute

deciders, who broke for the campaign that appeared to have the enthusiasm and momentum behind it, and for all its sophistication, it’s surprising the Clinton campaign came as close as it did in the Electoral College where a switch of 107,000 votes could have moved the center of the political universe from Manhattan to Brooklyn.

The Clinton campaign became overly fixated on demographic changes that were going to work in the Democrats favor. The African-American vote. The Hispanic vote. The LBGT&Q vote. All were going to make it possible to overcome those nasty non-degreed white men who were supporting Mr. Trump, and all had their priorities reflected whenever, if ever, the discussion turned to issues.

Well, guess what? Those non-degreed white men used to be called Democrats. But 36 years ago, they elected Ronald Reagan, and this time it was Donald Trump. Instead of writing them off, perhaps in the future more thought (and action) should be given to being more responsive to their legitimate needs and aspirations. Those needs and aspirations are every bit as relevant as those of any other sub-group of the electorate.

Democrats should not confine themselves to the East and West coasts and urban centers in between. The strategy has worked to elect Democrats to the White House in the past, and may do so in the future, but the party is withering away at the state and local level. At its zenith, the Democratic Party was a coalition of working men and women, farmers, small business owners, professionals, and intellectuals. At this, its apparent nadir, how many of these groups see the party as having their interests at heart? The answer appears to be “not so much anymore.” This has to change – now.

I know it’s hard to believe (and my friend in Greentown probably won’t) but a progressive can wish President-elect Trump well with sincerity (while reserving the right to offer comment and advice from across the aisle). Not only is it possible, it is necessary. To proceed in a democratic fashion means to remain engaged with the system even when you lose. If President Trump is successful, the country is successful. How can anyone wish for any other outcome?

One final thing. Let’s cool the rhetoric. If my friend from Greentown would refrain to referring to me and my “left-wing comrades,” as if progressives were communist sympathizers, I would eschew use of the term “deplorable.”

Neither is an accurate description of either of us.

Maggie, the dog, (remember Maggie?) chases squirrels.

When she catches sight of one, she stares at it. With the exception of an occasional quiver of her muzzle, or a twitch of her stubby little tail, she stands as immobile as a statue. Then she begins to stalk the little rodent that, typically, is gnawing nonchalantly on a product of one of our walnut trees. She hunkers down and creeps, creeps ever closer to her prize …

Then the squirrel scampers off to the nearest tree and out of harm’s way, leaving Maggie jumping up and down at the foot of that tree in frustration, and barking her fool head off.

The squirrels seem to think it’s great fun. Maggie not so much.

Maggie and her squirrels remind me of the predicament in which President-elect Trump currently finds himself, with the major exception that, in winning a healthy majority in the Electoral College, he caught his squirrel.

What the heck do you do with it now?

In the course of the campaign, he made many promises, and now is the time to deliver. What kind of hand has he been dealt by the electorate to transform promise into policy?

One promise that resonated with both Trump World and the wider political world outside was that he would “drain the swamp” of the hated, but nonetheless elected, Washington beltway elites.

How did that work out?

There were 435 seats in the House, and 34 in the Senate, up for election in 2016. The results? A net change of six seats (from Republican to Democrat) in the House and a net change of two seats (from Republican to Democrat in the Senate.

Translation? Most of the swamp dwellers are still in residence. They aren’t going anywhere voluntarily. A good number are not particularly enamored of President-elect Trump – that’s the “Republican elite.” Their Democrat counterparts are even less enthralled, and in a Senate where 60 votes are required to pass most legislation, the Democrats, while in the minority (51-48), have enough votes to block whatever legislation (or appointment) comes down the pike. How does he propose to deal with operatives on both sides of the aisle who can cut a political throat before the victim even feels the knife? This isn’t real estate any more, Dorothy.

Another inference was that he would be assisted in draining the swamp by bringing in outsiders untainted by the deadly Potomac virus. While it is still early days, as this is written, the first two announced appointments are of a three-term Republican national chairman, an ultimate insider, and the former head of a media  enterprise generally considered as being out there somewhere in alt-right cloud-cuckoo-land. Many observers express the opinion that a move into a swamp would actually be a step up the accommodation ladder for this individual. All in all, an interesting beginning.

Hovering in the background like a specter in the shadows are the issues. They weren’t discussed much during the campaign because e-mails, tail-covering FBI directors, and parsing locker room “boy talk” made for much more entertaining stories to fill the 24-7 news cycle.

Hillary had humpty dozen carefully crafted and vetted position papers – which nobody read. The president-elect had far fewer – and nobody cared. Now, however, the piper is demanding his due.

As already noted elsewhere, a tweet does not a policy make. The danger for this president-elect is that as his policies are fleshed out, they may not be radical enough for the ideologues on the Republican right for whom “principle” trumps compromise (couldn’t resist the pun!) every time. In fact, it could well be that his nastiest opposition will come from Republicans, and not Democrats.

Not to be an alarmist, but over the last eight years this Congress has demonstrated itself to be much more adept at investigating rather than legislating. Cross his Republican friends and their agenda – which may not be his agenda – too often, and who knows what could happen? But if the president-elect sees his faithful friend Mike Pence casting covetous eyes around the Oval Office, or surreptitiously measuring the drapes, he should be afraid. Very afraid. The vice president-elect is much more his “friends’” cup of tea.

America wants President-elect Trump to succeed. Although he did not win the popular vote (by more than a million votes, as this is being written), the rules of the game and the Electoral College have bound the fate of all of us, from Trumpeteers to Never Trumps, and everyone in between, to him. To be honest, I don’t envy him. I have no answers for him, but that’s not my job. It’s his.

He is the one who felt compelled to go chasing squirrels.

Since I have been writing about this presidential election for more than a year, in its aftermath, it seems appropriate to offer some kind of valedictory.

The column I was expecting to write assumed a President-elect Clinton. It would have urged reconciliation, even quoting from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in 1861: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as they surely will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

The column would have expressed the hope that a Republican-controlled Congress would give the new president a chance to govern, despite the eight years of obstructionism that crippled her predecessor.

Well, it just goes to show you that you shouldn’t block out a column, if only in your mind, in advance of the facts. It isn’t President-elect Clinton; it’s President-elect Trump.

Surprisingly perhaps, my thoughts are much the same. It is time for reconciliation. We should not be enemies. The divisiveness of this campaign has torn our country apart, and it must stop. It must stop before it causes permanent damage to the social contract that binds us together as a people. To my fellow Democrats and progressives, it should start with us as an affirmation of our belief in our Constitution and its tradition of a peaceful transition of power.

Whether the olive branch extended will be accepted remains to be seen – Lincoln’s was not – but I think it important that we make the offer.

The second part of that once-imagined column still has some validity. To a Republican-controlled House and Senate, be judicious in your exercise of power.

Your leadership has preached the necessity of change from the policies of the Obama years. You have claimed that 70 percent of the population wants change. Well, with control of House, Senate, and White House, the fate of our nation is truly – and completely – in your hands, and those of President Trump.

Use your power wisely. Remember that (at least as this is written) Hillary Clinton received more votes than Donald Trump. Moreover, this country is no longer the preserve of one race only. We are a multi-hued society, and becoming more so. All have aspirations that demand to be addressed. Women expect their place in that society to be determined by something other than a scale of one to 10. Younger citizens demand an economy that has opportunity for them. Older citizens claim their right to dignity and security in their senior years. Should you ram through ideologically motivated measures that fit your vision of political orthodoxy, but shortchange these realities because now you can, you damage not only the country but your own political futures.

As you settle into your new digs inside the Washington beltway, don’t forget the moms and pops, and other “little people,” who put you there. You don’t “own” anything in Washington. You merely lease it for a period of time from the American people – and they have long memories. Major promises were made. New jobs. New trade treaties. More secure borders. The return of manufacturing from overseas. The reopening of the coal fields. A reduction, if not outright repeal, of environmental regulations deemed obstacles to economic growth – hopefully without wrecking the environment in the process.

An ambitious, some might say overly ambitious, agenda, but these folks put their faith in you and the new president. You had best not disappoint.

To the new administration, best wishes and God speed.

To my friends on the short end of the election, don’t forget that we have been here before.

The last time it was a B-grade movie actor who once had a chimpanzee for a co-star and shilled for 20 Mule Team Borax in the early black-and-white days of television. It turned out to be survivable, and so will this.

In the meantime, smarter folks than I will dissect the obvious and not-so-obvious things that went wrong for us a few days ago. If we have the will and the courage to correct our shortcomings, we still have a message of hope and renewal that can resonate with the American people and find its place in the future of the country we all love.

But first, a binding up of the wounds inflicted in the course of the campaign, because, at the risk of irritating the victors, it is undeniable that we are “Stronger Together.”

At precisely 5:32 a.m., on Oct. 27, 2016, I had an epiphany.

I can pinpoint the time and date because that’s when I returned to bed from an early morning foray to the facility only to find, after I had laid down, that Maggie the dog had had an accident literally seconds before and exactly where I was lying. Such an untoward event has a way of fixing itself in one’s memory.

So okay, what about the epiphany?

Well, after stripping off the bed sheets, I was staring at the ceiling thinking about a recent column I had written. In that column, in my fair and balanced way, I had poked gentle fun at Republicans who are clamoring for change when, in fact, Republicans dominate most elective offices from the United States Senate and House down through the various governor’s mansions and state legislatures. The point being that for change to occur, there would have to be fewer Republicans in elective office – a not-so-subtle hint that folks could assist Republicans in realizing their dream by voting Democrat on Nov. 8.

Well, that’s predictable enough. I often sound like a broken record making that partisan point over and over. What about the danged epiphany?

It dawned on me that I had stopped the roll call of Republican-dominated offices at the state legislature level. I never mentioned the races for local county offices here in Howard County, even though all of them are currently held by the GOP. It never even occurred to me. How could I have let that slip?

“That’s it?” you ask. “That’s all there is? The fact your memory is failing is an epiphany? Heck, any of your students could have told you that!”

No, the epiphany was not that I failed to mention the local contests, but “why” the omission occurred in the first place.

The political scientists have a name for it. They have a name for most everything. This one’s called “social capital.” It’s defined as “the networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively.”

The theory goes like this: If the only contact we have with each other is over our differing political views, the odds are we will be relatively intolerant of each other. If we have many different points of contact, we are more likely to be more forgiving of each other.

For example, I only know Todd Young as a Republican candidate for the Senate. I perceive him to be an adversary.

On the other hand, take any local Republican candidate. I see them in the grocery store, and we exchange pleasantries. We go to the same church. The kids play on the same team. We both have Colts or Cubs stickers in the back window. We “know” each other first and foremost. The party labels are secondary. I am more willing to cut them some slack for their unfortunate political party affiliation – and perhaps they may be willing to forgive me for mine.

The epiphany was that while I saw these folks as Republicans, I still saw them as people first, not adversaries, so it never occurred to me to list them with those I perceived to be in that category.

This is a good thing. It is what allows us to stay unified as a community despite our political differences.

I saw it in action for the duration of my time with the city. Party labels pretty much lost their significance after the vote count was complete. There might be ripples of partisan discontent from time to time, but things never escalated out of control.

Kokomo is a tough, resilient little city. It should have curled up and died when the gas boom went bust in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It should have faded away when Haynes Automobile and the Apperson Brothers’ Jackrabbits closed up shop in the Twenties. It should have shut off the lights when GM and Delphi shipped thousands of jobs to God-knows-where over the last 30 years.

Its death has been reported multiple times, but it keeps on truckin’.

The reason, I believe is because we have been able to see each other as people first, and political partisans second – even as the ideological wars have flared ever hotter.

As we approach another election, let’s remember we have more in common that unites us than differences that divide us. That recognition is what makes us tough and resilient as a community. I’ll be a Democrat and you can be a Republican, and let’s cut each other some slack.

And I’ll try to remember to let Maggie the dog out more often at night.

A common refrain of Republican surrogates and spin gurus is that something over 70 percent of the American people believes the country is on the wrong course. What is needed is change.

“Change” is a slippery concept. Change from what, to what? Too little, folks complain. Too much, folks complain. Like the porridge in the “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” fairy tale, what constitutes “just right?”

So alright, let’s talk about change.

But first, some numbers.

There are 54 Republicans in the Senate, 44 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. Republicans have controlled the Senate since 2014.

There are 248 Republican members in the House, with 186 Democrats, and three vacant seats. Republicans have controlled the chamber since 2010.

There are 31 states with Republican governors, 18 with Democrats, and one with an Independent.

There are 30 states wherein Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature, with 11 states controlled by Democrats. In eight states, each party controls one of the two chambers. The 50^th state? Nebraska has a one-chambered legislature that is officially non-partisan.

According to Ballotpedia.com, nationwide there are 1,087 Republican state senators versus 821 Democrats. Percentage wise, that translates to 55.1 percent Republican against 41.6 percent Democrat.

Nationwide, according to Ballotpedia, there are 3,017 Republican state representatives. There are 2,334 Democrat state representatives. Percentage wise, this translates to a 56 percent to 43.1 percent split in the Republicans’ favor.

That’s the big picture. What about Indiana?

We have one Democrat senator and one Republican. Indiana’s House delegation consists of seven Republican congressman and two Democrats.

We have one Republican governor (when he’s here, which isn’t often anymore). A Republican has held the office for the last 12 years. All statewide offices, but one, are held by Republicans.

The Indiana Senate has 40 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The Indiana House has 71 Republican members and 29 Democrats.

Now, where were we? Oh yeah, the need for change.

And what about change here in Indiana? How do we stack up?

There are any number of entities out there that rank the states from the most to the least, or the best to the worse. These rankings range from the serious to the frivolous. For example, did you know www.estately.com ranks Indiana second in the nation in the number of Arby’s restaurants in the state? “The Meats” anyone?

Admittedly, any statistician worth his or her calculator can make the numbers twitter whatever song they choose (that’s “twitter” as birds do, not as The Donald does). Nevertheless, there are responsible sites out there, and the outcomes of these rankings for the Hoosier State are, at best, mixed.

CNBC ranks Indiana 16^th overall as a top state for business. They say Indiana is 1^st in the nation for the (low) cost of doing business and for its infrastructure. That’s great. On the other hand, the same ranking has Indiana 18^th in the nation in access to capital, 26^th in technology and innovation, 29^th in education, 36^th for its workforce, and 45^th in quality of life. That’s not so great.

Politico Magazine ranks Indiana 31^st among the states in its 2016 rankings. Governing Magazine puts us at 27^th. The rankings typically take into account such things as year-to-year changes in state unemployment numbers, state per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and the percentage of real change in GDP. While not infallible, such ratings probably should carry more weight than counting the number of Arby’s in the state.

I know other sources can be cited, but collectively, Indiana comes across as the “Great State of Average” (or slightly below). If average is good enough for you and for your children, you probably should stand pat with the hand you have. If not, you might want some different cards from the dealer.

It’s the same up and down the ballot, and across the nation. People say they want to change the course of the country. That’s fair. Might I make the suggestion, however, that change should start with changing out the folks who have been in charge of putting the country wherever it is today that folks find unacceptable?

The Republicans protest it isn’t them.

But the numbers say otherwise.