Pop 89: Who Wins?

By Madonna Hamel

I tried not to watch the American election, but the great vortex of energy exerted by the entire world staring into the screen was too great a force to be resisted. Watching election results is like entering a bakery or a bar; how can you resist the allure of what's on offer: instant mind-altering stimulation? 

I was doing great all day - I took my walk, I worked on my novel, I read from another novel, far better than my own. I took pause to send a little prayer up to whatever God is looking out for America in this time of flux and chaos after a relentless election season summoning up equal parts terror and joy. 

But by six o'clock, I knew the results would be coming in, and I clicked on my computer. Shortly thereafter, I started hunting my home for baked goods or beer. I needed a bag of cookies to knock me senseless. Or a 6-pack of IPA. But, the addict in me would not be fulfilled.

Instead, I watched America act out, in telescoped time, the all-too-familiar scenario that is an addict's merry-go-round. It starts with denial - an inflated sense of confidence that your side will prevail. If your side does prevail, you become frenetic and even a bit hysterical that you are getting exactly what you wanted, deserved, and expected. If your side does not prevail, you still behave frantically and frenetically. How can this be? Why is this happening? Either way, by the end of the night, if you are American, you will remind yourself - whether you are Donald Trump or Jimmy Kimmel - that you remain a citizen of the "greatest nation in the world." You will prevail. 

You fancy yourself that "shining city on the hill" that Reagan spoke of and, before him, a Puritan preacher and, before him, that skinny Jewish rabbi - what was his name? Oh yeah - Jesus, who, in his Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:14, proclaimed, "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden." He was speaking to his apostles, reminding them to be good examples of brotherly love and to remember - everyone is watching, like when you are on a hill looking down on everyone. 

It says something about your divided country that the best you can do is chastise each other's false moves and bad behaviour by reminding your fellow Americans that "the world looks up to us!" like some older sibling reprimanded by mom for not being a good example to the little ones.

Beginning in the 1970s, Ronald Reagan repurposed that line from the Sermon on the Mount. He built a powerful articulation of American exceptionalism—the idea, as he explained, "that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage." Since then, American exceptionalism—as summarized by the phrase "city on a hill"— has become both a reason and excuse for American behaviours of all sorts.

But, there is nothing exceptional or original about American exceptionalism; the "exceptional" British Empire took on the "burden" of civilizing the rest of the world. And before them, the "exceptional" Roman Empire justified every war of expansion it started and won by claiming the gods were on their side. Whether it's God or the gods, it is darn near impossible to believe you have a right to call yourself #1 if you don't truly believe you were chosen as an example to the rest of the world.

Watching the shock and dismay of saddened pundits after the election is as unnerving as watching the gloaters. Both sides seem to out of touch with where, as a nation, they stand in the world. This does not surprise me as much as how they don't seem to understand where they stand in their own country. 

However, as I continued to watch responses over the next few days, I was impressed by some journalists who have finally caught on that Trump may have won due to truths such as: a) rural America does not feel seen or heard beyond hick and hayseed cultural stereotypes and b) America still has a problem with women running for the presidency - Trump wins when women are his opponent and c) when a population is willing to overlook moral and spiritual bankruptcy to save them from possible financial bankruptcy anybody who promises prosperity - whether he intends to deliver or not - will win. 

Maybe, just maybe, my fellow journalists in America need to leave the safe enclaves of their neighbourhoods and get a peak at how the other nine-tenths live. One such writer who has been doing this all along is George Packer, who wrote an article for Atlantic magazine defining America as being actually four Americas: 1) Free America, as in free market America 2) Smart America, as in the meritocracy that became the aristocracy of ivy league academics who have a tight hold on the conversation and keep it in the family- believing that higher education is the noblest pursuit c) Real America- the rural folks we mentioned earlier, along with their working-class compatriots with whom they may actually have very little in common with except they are struggling to pay mortgages and d) Just America - activists reminding the nation they live in an "unjust" America.

Whatever America you are rooting for, it's important to remember that what makes America great is what makes EVERY country great: a mix of people with aspects of character that both charm and infuriate. Situated as we are, we Canadians are forced to look down on America and wonder how they will fare over the next four years with the man they, as a collective, won the role of their leader, the face of "the greatest country in the world."