A Non-American’s View of the Big Horrid American Dilemma (unemployed, vote)

[BusyMeAK]

A Non-American’s View of the Big Horrid American Dilemma



Trump got a chance to become a US president because modern America uses wrong approach to social conflicts. The nation hides them instead of facing and effectively resolving them.



When I was a student, our professor, giving us a group project, said: “Discuss your project. Argue. We here have a bad tradition of evading arguments. People vote for any solution presented first just because they feel bad about arguing.”

Same thing happens with internal problems in the US. There are unresolved racial conflicts, tension between the middle class and those on welfare, between unemployed people and foreign workers, some hatred for Muslims (terrorists or not), Mexicans (drug smugglers or not), and Russians (mobsters or not), etc. People feel uncertainty, disappointment, fear for their physical and financial safety, and Trump – verbally - answers this call, boiling fears into hatred, and presents himself as a Gods’d hand that will save America by fire and sword.

But America doesn’t need to be saved. This country just need to employ effective methods of conflict resolution.

Facing a conflict, we can suppress it, fight, or compromise. Conflict suppression - sometimes called tolerance - is widely used now in the US. People are afraid of discussing problems: with the power of social media, it’s easy to get labeled, ostracized, and even fired just because someone said what he thinks. The country is contemplating the Second Amendment, but quietly forgets about the First one. Like a bad housekeeper, hiding trash under the carpet, society hides conflicts. Is this metaphor overused? Let’s try another one - a peat bog fire. It starts slowly and burns and spreads deep under the layer of moss, giving away barely visible treads of smoke. And then it bursts open – boom! - and becomes uncontrollable.

The simplest way is to fight. But most things people are unhappy with are not even close to main values (which are worth fighting for). Most issues, like immigration, can be resolved creatively, without cracking the foundation of the country and voting for a dummy, inflated with societal dissatisfaction. “Creatively” means, for example, using something like “legal unity” instead of “marriage” for gay people – and it would be accepted easier. For many, the concept of marriage is solidly defined and truly sacred, so why it was necessary to humiliate them in order to please the other part? It is incomprehensible because it created a social rift instead of mending things.

The only good way to resolve conflicts is to sit together, have a talk, and find a way to satisfy, more or less, all sides. It is almost always doable. But it involves open, frank, honest discussion. And yes, it means hearing and saying unpleasant things, stepping on each other’s calluses, thinking as one’s opponent thinks, searching for options, accepting some blame from other sides. It takes logic, calm, determination, persistence, good will, talent for acceptance, talent for explaining to your flock why the chosen solution is the right one. Do we have all this? Yes. Are we capable of conducting such a nation-wide discussion? Yes, and let the frail cry, but we have to bear it.

We, who live here, Americans or not yet, don’t need politicians warming up one side against the other, or proclaiming ones’ rightness and others’ wrongness. “Divided we fall” means “United we win,” and, as I see it, “united” here means that different clusters of society (social stratas, colors, religions, you name them) face the problems, and openly negotiate them. Politicians should only facilitate. The sides that express their opinions - not fears or prejudices, note the difference - should be praised for help in conflict resolution, exactly like we praise doctors who diagnose hidden maladies.

We don’t have to fear conflicts. They fuel progress. When we have a conflict, it means we have a starting block for the forward movement, like runners do. We need to learn to embrace conflicts, not fear them.

This, maybe, will help to avoid facing such a horrible dilemma in the future – a choice between a racist feeding on worst people’s fears and turning them into campaign’s slogans, and an irresponsible populist without economic sense, without program, whose only chance to win is to continue playing “first woman in the White House” card because this is her only joker.

This all being said, if I could, I would vote for Trump. America can digest Trump, and make him an endurable interim figure. But lousy approach to economic problems and weak foreign politics, that with Clinton are almost guaranteed, can throw America in a downward spiral movement. Basically, if Trump does nothing besides being a happy placeholder, it will be safer than Clinton acting as predicted.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Preposterous drivel.

[calipoppy]

Thank goodness you can't vote

[SandyCo]

This was all well and good until I read the last paragraph. Trump has no intention of "doing nothing besides being a happy placeholder". If only it were that simple! No, he wants to mutate or destroy what makes America different from totalitarian states. He's xenophobic. He can't relate to people at all; he has only gotten this far because he has telling some people the drivel they've been waiting to hear for a long time. He would leave the presidency and the U.S. as a far less respected presence in the world.

Also, like it or not, the polarization in this country is real. "Separate but equal" in reality is nothing but.

[WaldoKitty]

I take note the OP failed to identify the country he/she lives in.

This speaks for itself.