[Gregory Palmerino]

Mark,

History is littered with men who have risen to power while good, simple folk just wanted change. It remains to be seen how those good, simple folk will react when they get the change they didn't vote for. Including the military, there are over 4 million people who work for the U.S. federal government. We'll see how many John Chiang's there are once this ball gets rolling.

My first reaction to the poem in question was that Wilbur's poem was naive and surprising for someone who experienced WWII so profoundly. However, as Nicholas Butler says, optimism is the foundation of courage. It's my hope that Wilbur's poem was expressing the need for courage rather than the luxury of conversation.

Courage from a lot of people is what I'm hoping for over the next four years. This could be a time when the beacon of progress shines from its heart again rather than from its head. Courage: that's what's wanted and that's what's needed.

Cheers,
Greg

[Mark McDonnell]

Understand, I'm not saying people on the left should just stop moaning and put up with it. These are not normal events you're dealing with here. A man like Trump, in any sane democracy, shouldn't be anywhere near the White House. I don't know enough about the political system in the US, but if there was any way to prevent that from happening in January I'd hope people would be all over it.
I'm just saying the left needs to be very proactive now, not just reactive.

Greg: was cross posting there. I agree. Heart and head are needed equally I think.

[Julie Steiner]

Originally Posted by Orwn Acra

Julie, no one here is saying what you posit in your first paragraph.

Yes, I know. No one [here] is saying what you posit, either--i.e., that all forms of angry protest should be condemned, and only "quiet discourse" is allowed. The poem certainly doesn't say that. How can the students explain why they are on strike if they are only explaining, and not striking?

Anyway, it's time to stop yelling at each other, and start trying to join forces in the many areas in which unity is possible. Trump might actually keep his promise to unify the country, despite himself, by unifying us against his unacceptable policies and appointments.

Americans overseas, please ask your American hometown newspapers if they'd be interested in publishing an op-ed piece by you, from your unique perspective.

Americans in the States, please take a few minutes to add the phone numbers of your Members of Congress and Senators to your phone, if they aren't already there. Call their district offices to register your displeasure about the counter-productive appointment of Steve "Turn On the Hate" Bannon, and to encourage them to join bipartisan efforts to get Trump to rescind it. Follow up next week to thank them for their action, or let them know you're still concerned.

Also write a brief letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Even if they don't print yours--and my local paper has never printed any of mine over the years--this is not wasted effort, because the editors take the overall volume of mail on an issue into account when choosing how many letters pro and con to print. Every letter on your side helps win additional column inches for your side.

Get ready to repeat this process many, many times over the next four years--in addition to whatever other forms of protest you may be doing.

Self-therapeutic expressions of anger against partial allies may feel good in the moment, but they undermine the groundwork for future joint efforts. We won't be able to find common ground on every single thorny issue, but we do need each other if we're going to get our country through this.

[Andrew Frisardi]

“When millions of people stand up and fight back we will not be denied,” says Bernie Sanders in this video done after the election. The Bern lives.

[Andrew Frisardi]

As a footnote to this thread, I’ll add that when I was reflecting on it yesterday, I finally realized (I’m a bit slow in realizing things) why I reacted against the message of Wilbur’s poem and Michael’s comment, in the present context.

Mike wrote: My point--and Wilbur's--is that our democracy works better if we talk civilly to each other rather than ranting angrily.

But I think this is setting up two false equations: calm = civil, and anger = ranting.

I remember from previous posts, Mike, that you’ve recommended the Aristotelian golden mean for debate and discussion, pointing out (rightfully) that blow-out anger doesn’t in fact mitigate anger. It only spreads it. This is true.

But Aristotle also granted a place to controlled, articulate anger and polemic (which is where Dante is coming from, btw, in that passage I quoted). Among the valid emotional responses he named, one is righteous indignation.

And I think that’s exactly the emotion that meets what has just happened in this election and what is still happening as Trump selects his advisors.

It’s not the doors of voters I need to knock on, since they’re not the ones I’m incensed at. The door of Trump Tower would be the one to knock on. But I and others can’t do that.

So my position is that, figuratively speaking, I’m outside the door of Trump Tower, not to discuss anything, but to give him a piece of my mind for what he is inflicting on us collectively. And to protest his policies in whatever way I can.

[Michael Juster]

I accept that the unnecessary adverb "angrily" may have confused my message. For the record, I'm all for passion in public discourse--including passion driven by anger. I just don't condone verbal or other bullying.

[Jim Moonan]

How amnestic time is. Barack Obama has, in a hundred different ways on a thousand different occasions, urged, inspired, even implored us to engage in conversation, discourse, tolerance, empathy and compassion with each other in order to move the needle towards a more perfect world. Those things are not easy to do in the best of times. They are essential to do in trying times like these. One sure way of making Obama’s legacy vanish into the ether is to use certitude as a shield rather than summon the better angels of our nature to advance human decency. Yes, now is the time. This is the place. We are the ones.

Now, rake me over the coals, if that be your will. (That's a little bit of Leonard Cohen : )

[Michael F]

Rake you over the coals? Quite the opposite.

This country is in as dark and angry a mood as I have known in my life. Unless we start talking to each other instead of past each other, I'm afraid we will come apart -- which would be fine, if coming apart were not so often steeped in blood.

I think that's why MLK, our American prophet, said that evolution is better than revolution.

[Gail White]

Thank you, Michael. I had never seen this one of RW's before.

[Paddy Raghunathan]

Originally Posted by Michael Juster

My point--and Wilbur's--is that our democracy works better if we talk civilly to each other rather than ranting angrily. In my opinion, there are tens of millions of people--maybe more--of all points of view who should be accepting that premise.

I regret that you & Andrew don't share my opinion, and hope in time you see a need to change your rhetorical approaches.

Mike, I am intrigued by your original post. You are, from what I read about you, known for your Republican beliefs. I can't say that is wrong.

That said, I remember a lot of Republican anger in 2010 against Obama and the ACA spill out...as the Tea Party manifested itself into our consciousness, well known Republicans like Colin Powell told the Tea Partiers that mere anger for anger's sake wasn't the solution. Republican anger has continued to swell as Obama pushed through much of his agenda.

Now the left and the Democrats are returning the favor.

The next few years will be interesting, no doubt.