I'm not sure about the policy implications in two recent essays, but the sentiments strike me as on point.  First, columnist Terry Jeffrey.
The ultimate question is not how a person will vote, but what will give them a fulfilling life. It is not what persons will hold political office in United States of America, but what values will keep us free and prosperous.

The same values that made this nation great can unite this nation again. They are family, faith, hard work and the desire to live a long and good life without government standing in your way.
Put another way, the Trump electoral victory looks a lot like the standard geographic pattern.
Among voters in urban areas, Clinton beat Trump 59 percent to 35 percent. But among voters in the suburbs, Trump beat Clinton 50 percent to 45 percent; and among voters in rural areas, he beat her 62 percent to 34 percent.

When voters move to the suburbs and the country, it hurts the liberal cause.
There are other subtleties, but those are for another post, after more information comes in.

Second, Commentary's Noah Rothman suggests it probably isn't useful for extremists to apply the label "extreme" to everything they disagree with.
America’s exceptionalism is founded, in part, upon its routinized politics. The standard deviation between Democratic and Republican administrations has traditionally been a modest one, and it is that predictability that makes America a safe investment and, thus, a prosperous society. Only when the left decides to stop demonizing those policies with which they disagree as beyond the bounds of acceptable American conduct will we see the true definition of the word “extreme” restored. That alone will not go toward sating the public’s desire to see a radical transformation of the political process regardless of the consequences to American stability, but it’s a start.
Yeah, that privilege-shaming and virtue-signalling has worked so well.

We have much to look forward to.

No comments: