Straight up, I'm writing this ten minutes before my editor's deadline. It's finals week; I just turned in my last paper this afternoon and I'm exhausted. I haven't had much time during the past week to think about a two-sided argument, so I'll leave you with something that's been percolating in the back of my head since the election.
Outrage vs. Normalization
Outrage
One way for self-identified progressives, liberals, and Democrats to deal with Trump's victory is outrage: outrage at the semi-unconstitutional "policies" he has proposed, the borderline negligent appointments he has made and the general atmosphere of borderline insanity his comments about Russia have created.
Our job over the next four years is to sustain the same level of outrage we felt on election night, when tears were shed and drinks were poured out for minority communities now facing untold challenges. If we implicitly accept this man's election, even by talking about his actions with the merest semblance of rationality, we allow the bigotry and hatred he promoted during the campaign to stake out a legitimate spot in America's political future.
Normalization
The only way for us (the pesky progressive, liberal, Democrats I was talking about earlier) to take back the White House in 2020 is to treat President-Elect Donald Trump with the full amount of respect his future office deserves and, in the words of @FLOTUS, "when they go low, we go high."
But what does taking the high road look like? it looks like saving our outrage for when a President Trump blatantly disregards our first amendment rights and starts to sue publications for negatively, yet accurately, covering his actions. It looks like donating to State Legislature, County Prosecutor and other local Democratic campaigns: steps we failed to take in the past because we couldn't be bothered to pay attention to off-year races. It looks like being patient.
Elites and everyday people alike have argued for both approaches passionately and effectively. Is normalization morally reprehensible? Is it effective, not to mention realistic, to expect fiery, righteous anger to sway voters in four years? I don't know.
