|
I don't discount the differences in priorities between many folks living in different geographies. It would be unusual if there weren't regional preferences. What is harder for me to understand is how those same differences have been exploited in such a way for people to vote against their own self-interest, even accounting for those priorities. It's always OK to disagree, it's certainly OK to be annoyed if one doesn't feel included, it's OK to push for self-interested change/improvement/better opportunities. That's how it's supposed to work.
It's just the end result of that change in this case is almost certainly going to be a sad realization for those same groups of people, even if every key priority happens exactly as wished for by our new president. Put aside any of the moral, cultural, personality, style, or any other attribute we might like or dislike. Focusing only on economic opportunity, we have helped to vote in someone with strong anti-union tendencies, anti-worker tendencies, anti-trade tendencies, anti-federal support for well, anything, and backwards economic policies. The economic/tax policies, even if implemented exactly as hoped for, will be far more beneficial to groups that in general do not support our president elect. If status quo isn't great for the disaffected voter, and it certainly might not be; in all likelihood it's now going to get worse for them, not better.
Hindsight is 20/20, and life wouldn't be very interesting if we all knew exactly what was going to happen tomorrow, the day after that, and the year past then. But history also repeats itself, and it will be interesting to come back to this thread a few years from now to see how these hopes translated into positive or negative results for our country and its people.
|