I agree with Matt Lewis of the Daily Beast when he credits Chris Christie with having the best take on the current political moment – simply because he realizes it’s a decision between “Trump or not Trump,” and is acting on that assumption.

But Christie also has the one talent anyone who wants to beat Trump must have – an innate, Rickles-like ability to use one-liners to shoot him down. That factor has always seemed obvious to me. In fact it’s only because of politicians like the hapless (and oblivious) Marco Rubio that that strategy came to seem unworkable. But then again, Rubio’s haplessness has become legendary, in part because it also helped give Christie his one shining moment of 2016, when it allowed him to single-handedly blast Rubio onto the trash heap of presidential history.

In some ways, that incident also helps illustrate the other reason Lewis cites for giving Christie a big fat leg up. He’s entertaining. Which means Christie has more going for him than any candidate other than Trump. So why is he lagging in the polls? And why is he ultimately likely to fail to win the nomination?

Because he doesn’t know how to truly connect with Trump voters.

Sure, he knows how to sling the one-liners, and in a way that anyone not named Donald Trump can appreciate. But in order for him to be successful, he will need to bring Trump country Republicans over to him. And he just doesn’t seem to have the touch for that.

So who does?

Regrettably, no one to this point – at least not in the real world. And the only way to appreciate what I mean by that, is to listen to Charlie Wyatt, the former stand up comic in my novel The Contrarian Candidate. And I’m being serious here. Because it’s impossible to understand what’s truly missing, even from an otherwise talented politician like Chis Christie, unless you listen to someone who has what it takes – however fictional he may be.

And along with a political comedian’s acerbic wit, Wyatt has the ability to connect with Trump’s voters in a way that only someone who grew up in Trump country can. And sure, there are plenty of politicians who say that’s where they’re from. But few of them really seem to know how to connect with the people we’re talking about here. And as David Books of the New York Times and others have pointed out, that’s because today’s politicians seem to have grown up on the other side of the tracks from those folks, and then, as their lives (and careers outside politics) progressed, did whatever they could to drift further from them. And as a result, they just don’t seem to know those folks; know how they think, know how they talk, know how they feel.

That takes someone like Wyatt, someone who can talk to them about anything from assault rifles to sexual abuse, with the kind of barroom banter they appreciate and understand – all the while empathizing, even sympathising, with their understanding of the world. And that allows Wyatt to show that he’s one of them and knows where they’re coming from – in part because he really comes from there too.

Christie will never have that kind of backhome touch. Which is why Trump voters will never really warm to him, the way they might to someone like Wyatt. Christie is too smart-mouthed-New Yorker for them, too sharp and edgy. Plus he’s too well educated and willing to show it – unlike Trump who (despite his own assessment) seems too dumb to know anything about anything truly worth knowing.

All of which lines up very nicely with a line of attack Christie’s very adept at using – a line of attack which is particularly effective against someone like Trump – showing what an ignorant, incompetent, loser Trump really is.

But most Trump supporters think he’s smart – at least in a foggy and confused, what-did-he-just-say kind of way. And unfortunately Christie doesn’t know how to campaign outside his attack mode in a way that allows him to appeal to voters who think and feel that way about Trump.

Plus they will always see Christie as a politician, since that’s how they first met him – and as a politician they didn’t particularly like. In fact he’s one of the most disliked Republicans (at least among Republicans). Democrats and Independents like him better. But that’s not exactly a winning profile for someone who’s seeking the Republican nomination.

No doubt Christie’s presence will weaken Trump to some extent. But who’s he going to weaken Trump for – to who’s benefit?

That’s complicated by the fact that this race isn’t about the usual left/right dynamic. It’s about the more historical “haves versus have-nots,” and the dividing line between the classes – or in its modern context, those riding-high-on-the-global-economy, versus those getting-left-behind-by-it-all. And that definitely leaves Christie out. Because there’s nothing “getting left behind” about that guy, except maybe the trailing wobble of his butt.

So how has a rich New Yorker like Trump gotten away with it. He’s done it by convincing his supporters the world is out to get him – an idea that comes naturally to him, thanks to having been rejected by New York’s elite for so long. But again, New Jersey’s former top prosecutor and governor is never going to pass the smell test as a left-behinder. So he can forget about it.

And so can Tim Scott and Doug Burgum and Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy and anyone else who takes so much as a desirous glance at the rags to riches card. Because for the most part, Trump voters aren’t interested. To them it’s about the fact that you’ve made it and they haven’t. And that’s probably as a result of something you’ve done to people like them.

And who does that leave as the likely nominee? You guessed it.

So could someone please point me to the real Charlie Wyatt? Because that’s who it’s going to take to save us all from four more years of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is not the retiring kind. Sure, he’s hunkered down licking his wounds for now. But that won’t last long, and certainly not as long as an exhausted country is hoping. And when he comes out of his cave, he’s going to be hungry – for revenge, for validation, for the chance to prove the country wrong. Which means he’s going to be on the attack against anything and anyone he feels did him wrong – according to his troubling sense of right and wrong.

Which means he’s going to continue to discredit the electoral system, including the administrators and the courts – the Supreme Court included. He’s going to be attacking the Democrats and their voters, especially the kind that were dancing in the streets at his expense. He’ll be decrying Republicans for not providing enough support and fealty, despite their near total contrition to his will. He’ll be whining about the media, for reporting the truth about the election, and… well pretty much everything they’ve said about him over the past four years. And he’ll be denouncing the Federal Reserve and the entire scientific and medical community – for failing to save his presidency. 

In short, he’ll be out to get them all.

And if past is any kind of prologue, the media will be right there with him, covering it wall to wall, Tweet by Tweet, grievance by grievance. Which means they’ll be giving him all the attention he craves – and therefore all the power he needs to do whatever it is he wants to do.

Oh sure, ‘Sleepy Joe’ will manage to get his share of coverage, and it will be positive enough for the most part – certainly throughout the honeymoon period. But that won’t last forever. And when it ends, my guess is that things will take a marked turn – and not for the better. 

After all, Biden will be dealing with some pretty sticky issues, ones that are not easily resolved. And then there’s that one overarching issue that will likely prove all but impossible to resolve. And it’s an issue that, as near as I can tell, he has no idea how to deal with – that of healing the national divide. 

I really don’t see what he has planned for healing that divide – other than being a really nice guy and hoping everyone will suddenly see the world the way he does, and therefore finally join hands in a national and historic ‘kumbaya’ moment. Nor do I see what he could have planned.

Which means that insoluble problem is almost certain to become an immovable object in the middle of the road to resolving the most immediate and pressing of his concerns – that of ending the pandemic. 

Because that divide between Republicans and Democrats in their attitudes towards COVID prevention measures is only going to widen. Which means every measure we have for dealing with the pandemic is going to become an even more divisive hot button issue in the weeks and months to come.

And to make matters worse, Biden did everything he could throughout his campaign to make it seem as though he had a fantastic new way of dealing with the pandemic, and that with him at the helm, the COVID crisis would suddenly take a magical turn – like the one Trump has been dreaming out loud about for months now. 

But what is Biden really going to be able to do, that is so different from what the Trump administration has been doing?

Sure Trump messed up at the start of the pandemic, to say the least – and in a catastrophic way. But, as I argued in a previous blog on the subject, other than in his messaging, which admittedly isn’t nothing, what can Biden really do that is so different? 

And even as far as messaging goes, how much of an impact can he really have at this stage in the game? Because, as I say, it seems opinions are pretty much baked into the cake at this point, certainly as far as wearing face masks, practicing social distancing, and shutting down the economy – all of which seems to be the totality of the tools now in the tool box. So again, what can Joe Biden really do?

The one area that decidedly does have room for improvement, is testing. But even there, most experts seem to agree that improvements in testing at this late stage will not have nearly the impact many seem to be claiming, and certainly not what they’d have had at the beginning of the pandemic. 

Besides, does anyone really think Biden has some kind of magic bullet that will radically improve the testing regime in the country? If he does, why isn’t he sharing it with us? Why wait until he takes office to unveil such a magical plan? It makes no sense. Which tells me there is no plan, and that there really is very little he can do to markedly alter the course of the disease.

At some point, hopefully soon, a vaccine will become available in serious numbers. But how likely is it the vaccination process will go as smoothly as hoped? And what will be the reaction across the nation when things start to go wrong? 

Just imagine how the process is likely to play out, amid the kinds of soaring infection rates that are expected in the months to come. 

As we all know, the country is now experiencing new and alarming rates of infection, that are likely to accelerate over the winter months. So think of the scramble to distribute a vaccine in that climate. There will be 300,000,000 people waiting in line in the U.S., and billions more around the world. It’s going to feel like we’re all treading water in a shark infested lagoon, waiting for a boat to come and save us.

So how do you think people are going to react when they know there is an easy way for them to be safe, while at the same time getting their lives back in order – but they are each going to have to wait their turn?

The American public is not a patient lot at the best of times. And they are not going to be happy. 

Meanwhile, to the extent the media is able to take its collective eyes off Trump, they are going to be zeroing in on every little issue – every wrinkle in the plan, every delay, every setback, every new announcement and report – such as where the critical vials are headed, who is getting inoculated and why, and who is jumping the line. And then there will be questions about the actual effectiveness of the vaccine, and what the side effects might be.

Cue the anti-vaxxers. 

That will be Biden’s next big headache. A good percentage of the population, mainly Trump voters, are going to refuse to be vaccinated. Which means the whole inoculation regime is going to be much less effective, even for those who choose to go along, which will mainly be Biden voters. 

How will Biden manage to wrangle his way through that tangled mess? And how aggressive is he prepared to be? 

And all this will be playing out with Trump fully behind the vaccine deniers.

All of which means it is not going to be an easy time for the newly minted Biden administration – to say the least. In fact it’s going to be one big hot steaming mess. And Trump will be watching it all unfold on his favorite news network, buckets of fried chicken at the ready, hurling Tweets the size of bunker busters at the Biden world. 

And not only will that make Biden and his administration seem weak, it will make Trump seem all the stronger. After all, it’s easy to look smart in retrospect. And he’s become something of an expert at finding ways to do that. And now he’ll have all the time in the world to put that expertise to use, second guessing every false step Biden takes. 

And he’ll be doing that with tens of millions of followers hanging on his every word. And through it all, the entire media establishing will be hanging right there with them. Of that you can be sure.

The victory achieved by Biden and Harris and the Democrats on November 3rd may turn out to be painfully hollow. That is especially true when considering the state of the nation and the nature of the world in which it took place, and the critical, pressing issues now facing Biden. 

Despite Trump’s loss in the electoral college and his continued inability to accept the results, the election has to be considered something of a vindication for him, if only because, other than white men, Trump gained ground with every major demographic group in the country. And then there is the disappointment for the Democrats in down-ballot voting, with Republicans gaining seats in the House of Representatives and in state governorships and legislatures. Couple that with the fact that Republicans are almost certain to hold on to the Senate in DC, and you end up with what has to be considered something of a disappointment for the Democrats.

So where does that leave Joe Biden and his party? And where does it leave the country? 

Surprisingly enough, it may not leave the country all that much better off than it was before. 

Sure, Trump is on his way out of the White House. But he is far from gone from the scene, and will certainly be the dominate force in the Republican Party in the months and years to come. This is clearly evidenced by the way Republicans in congress and across the nation have supported his fanciful effort at holding onto power. That, even as that effort ventured into the world of farce – the child-like man, hiding under the covers, refusing to face the truth about a world closing in on him, whining and weeping to himself and those around him about how unfair it all is and how everyone is being so mean to him, and how one day he’s going to get back at them all – you’ll see.

Yet throughout it all, we’ve seen not one scintilla of backbone in the entire Republican Party. To this point, the only Republicans willing to speak up, are those who can do so at no political cost to themselves. Which tells you all you need to know about why the rest of them are staying so quiet. They know they need Trump’s voters to keep their jobs and for their party to stay in power. And that dynamic is not likely to change any time soon. Because if you’re waiting for the end of Georgia runoffs or for Trump to leave office in hopes that that will change things, think again, as I explain in an earlier blog The Trump fever-dream continues.

So much for ending the country’s divides, or even making any real progress in that effort.

Yet that seems to be Biden’s number one priority, at least as stated during his campaign. 

Sure COVID has become his most immediate concern. But how much can he really do about that? After all, as he himself points out, dealing with the pandemic is about following the science. Well, the science is telling him this crisis will not end until we have mass quantities of an effective vaccine. And it is the scientists and their science that will determine that, not Joe Biden or the Democrats, or anyone else in Washington DC. 

And as far as what he can do about the pandemic, that seems limited to changing the messaging in hopes of changing the actions and attitudes of the American people, in order to flatten the curve and otherwise deal with the pandemic in a more effective way. And that too is a problem of the nation’s political divide.

So how does Biden plan on healing that divide? That is the question that has yet to be answered. 

Because despite the fact that it was the central focus of his campaign and a big part of his November 7th acceptance speech, to this point he has not shown us in any concrete way how he plans to do that. 

In his acceptance speech he spoke of great movements and great initiatives of the past, all of which occurred in other times of great need.

“America has always been shaped by inflection points – by moments in time where we’ve made hard decisions about who we are and what we want to be. Lincoln in 1860 – coming to save the Union. FDR in 1932 – promising a beleaguered country a New Deal. JFK in 1960 – pledging a New Frontier.”

But after waxing poetic about those great achievements by other newly-elected presidents, and explaining how vital they were in bringing the nation together to solve its most urgent needs, he did nothing to offer a great movement of his own. He did not name or outline or in any other way spell out his great initiative for uniting the country. Which seems to suggests that he believes the nation will somehow come together around grand generalities about the country being “better than this,” and by him speaking warmly, sincerely and reassuringly about its ability to do that.

He acknowledges it will be difficult – but says nothing about how he will overcome those difficulties. He talks about bringing people together – but says nothing about how that will happen, or around what. 

If his aim is sincere, as I believe it is, and he truly wants to bring Americans together, then he needs them to follow him to that less divided place. But if you want people to follow you, you have to give them something to follow. And vague notions about moving towards a less divided nation is not going to do that, not even close. 

All of which tells us that despite the fact that uniting the nation has been his defining message, he still has no plan for how to do that in a way he can explain to the American people. And that tells me he has no real plan, at least none that has any chance of coming to fruition.

And that is very troubling, because that divisiveness is the most critical issue facing the nation and the world, and may be as critical in our time, as the issue of Nazi Germany was nearly a century ago. That is not a reference to our Nazi skin heads or even racism in general. It is a reference to the fact that the anger felt in pre-war Germany, the quite justifiable anger the German people felt in the wake of the Treaty of Versailles, is paralleled by what we see reflected in Trump and Brexit and other populist movements of our day.

As it was in pre-war Germany, that anger and resentment is the result of a vast, relatively-diverse class of people, who feel they have been wronged by those who run the world. They feel trapped in a world not of their own making, by policies that are being enacted around them by an undefinable class of elites. And as a result, they feel their voices are not being heard and their issues not addressed in the halls of power. And that leaves them to feel they have no stake in the world they live in, and therefore nothing to lose by supporting leaders and policies that promise to tear it apart.

Addressing this issue is the most critical challenge facing the world today. Yet no one seems to have any idea how to face that challenge, in the United States or elsewhere. The forces that have created the problem are not well understood, and to the extent there is some understanding, that understanding is not being acted upon in any concrete or sustained way. 

In part that is because those who are in a position to do something about the issue, the new elite as they are thought of in general terms, are not heeding their own advice, and are certainly not acting as though they have an interest in solving those problems.

But ignoring the root of the problem is not going to make it go away. It is only going to cause it to fester, and as a result, impact every other issue our world now faces – from the containment of the pandemic and the economic recovery that will need to follow, to global warming and the rise of China.

And though these are global problems which require global solutions, that global world is still centered around the United States. In fact that world was built around the assumption that the world’s largest economy and its oldest democracy would act as its center of gravity in holding that world in place. Almost every institution that now makes up that global world was imagined and partly crafted by the United States, from NATO to the World Trade Organization to the United Nations and beyond. These are the institutions that define our global world. They are the ones that write the rules, arbitrate the disputes and set the boundaries for the world in which we live.

And the United States is still instrumental in keeping that world intact, no matter how the rest of the world now feels about it, and whether those feelings are purely a result of the last four years or not. Because the world still looks to the United States for direction. As Charlie Wyatt, my candidate in The Contrarian Candidate puts it:

“And make no mistake; no matter how they may feel about us now, they still need us to be there, to be at the center of that world – at the center of our world. And we need to be at the center, if only because that’s the way we’re made. Because as everybody knows, we’re the ones who always want to show off, who need to show off, who need to show the world what we can do. 

“That’s just the way we are folks. And that’s what the world needs from us. In fact that’s what we need from ourselves.

“So I think it’s time we started showing off a little, don’t you? I think it’s time we started to show the world what we can really do. 

“So instead of hiding in fear and putting up walls, the way our current president wants us to do, I say it’s time to get out there and meet the challenges of the world we created.”

But before any of that can happen America needs to solve its own problems, which more than anything means healing its divides at home. That is the focus of my book. And that will be the focus of this blog, certainly for the most part. Because that is the most urgent need of the country, and the most pressing need of the world it helped create.

Rather than healing the political divide, Joe Biden seems to have enough on his plate just keeping that divide from becoming even wider. And he’s doing that mainly by being careful not to confront or otherwise irritate those on the other side. And that seems a good approach for the moment, given the volatility of the situation and the fact that he seems to have no clear plan for dealing with the issue in other, more assertive ways. 

Besides, his main problem in terms of political divides, at least in the near term, is likely to be those within his own party. Because the progressive AOC-Sanders wing seems to see Biden’s victory as something of a mandate for the kind of change they advocate. While on the other side, he has moderates, such as Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger of Virginia. 

In a Democratic post-election, post-mortem conference call, Spanberger, who nearly lost her usually safe seat on November 3rd, put her feelings bluntly. “If we are classifying Tuesday as a success, we will get f*cking torn apart in 2022.”

That is just a sampling of the kind of rancor and divisiveness Biden faces. And as a result, his options are generally being seen as either moving to the left by enacting policies that appease those progressives who are out for revenge after the last four years of Trump, or moving to the right to comfort the moderates who believe it is necessary to take a more measured stance in order to appeal to those former Democrats who once again voted for Trump.

Instead it’s about Trump versus anti-Trump

But that seems a misreading of the situation in many ways. Because the current divide in the country is not so much about policy or even politics – at least not in the traditional sense. Instead it’s about Trump versus anti-Trump – not exactly your grandfather’s left/right political standoff.

So Biden’s first job in terms of healing the divide is going to involve having a good long look at the results of the last few elections, in order to come to some kind of understanding as to what is really going on. But in order for that understanding to be complete, he is going to have to come to terms with the part being played by those on his side of that divide, especially those on his left. 

Because that divide is not going to be truly bridged by Biden reaching across the aisle to Trump supporters and asking them to come to him. It will only be done by moving his own supporters – not to cross that divide, obviously – but to momentarily wander up to the line, in order to get a better look at those on the other side. 

That will not be an easy sell. But it seems unlikely that any politician from one side will be able to reach across to those on the other side – certainly not to any real effect. 

Just try to think of a high-profile member of the Trump camp, who you would listen to if approached.

Would it be Kellyanne Conway, or Stephen Miller, or Congressman Jim Jordan? Who would it be? Just contemplating that idea should be enough to indicate the degree of difficulty in Biden or any other Democratic being able to bridge the divide by reaching across from his side of the aisle.

Sure, it may be possible to find common ground on one issue or another. But that is not going to heal the real divisions. To truly do that is going to take a sincere level of introspection, and one with the real potential of a change in attitudes. And that is not likely to happen any time soon – certainly not on the Trump side – especially given the bitterness and resentment Trump has managed to stoke in the aftermath of his defeat. A recent Monmouth Poll shows that 77% of Trump voters believe Biden won the election because of fraud. That’s in the neighborhood of 57,000,000 people.

That is the unsettling situation Biden now faces. And it will be entirely up to him and the Democrats to resolve that situation. And that is true for several reasons.

The first, is that Biden won the election, and is about to become commander-in-chief of the entire nation. That does not necessarily give him much of a mandate. But of the so-called mandates that victory may have given him, ending the madness and healing the nations divide seems to be the strongest. 

The second reason is that, as previously stated, Trump supporters are in no mood to even want to heal the divide, especially the politicos among them, who tend to see that divide as to their advantage. In fact for some, it is their sole reason for being. Which is not unlike their opposite on the Democratic side, which Biden will also have to deal with. 

The third, is that Democratic supporters tend to be the more introspective of the two camps, and are more likely to be of an intellectual bent. So they are more likely to look at the world from 40,000 feet, and therefore be in a position to see the forces at play in creating that divide. While Trump voters are more likely to have their noses to the ground trying to figure out where the next mortgage payment is coming from. 

And sure, a great swath of Democratic voters are in the same position as Trump’s base, just as Trump has many followers who are much better off generally than most of us. But those less well off Democrats have little personal power, and as a result, tend follow the party line – just look at Black voters over the last half century. 

Meanwhile, the elite Trump supporters, such as Steve Bannon, are not so much following Trump, as leading him in the direction they want him to go. And they’re doing that in order to fulfill long held beliefs and ideals of their own. Which is why Bannon left the Trump administration as early as he did. Once he realized his agenda was not the one being enacted, he did not see any reason to stick around.

Another reason it will be up to Democrats, and progressives in general, is that they are the ones more likely to believe in the political process and see it as a positive force for change – and therefore want to use it in positive ways. In part that is because they tend to think they have the power and know-how to do that, while those on the Trump side only feel they have the power to blow things up. And because those Trump voters do not feel they have any real stake in the country, or in the world, they do not have any reason to resist that desire to blow that world to pieces. And that is a real problem for Biden and the Democrats. 

Another potential difficulty is that while Biden and the Democrats are generally in a better position to understand and heal the divides, they also tend to see things in more traditionally political terms. Conventional wisdom would suggest that that would not help them in their relations with those on the other side. But Trump voters, by and large, do not see the divide in traditional left/right terms. 

Which means the divide is not really about border security or healthcare, or even racism and sexism. Because the real dividing line is not left versus right, or even right versus wrong in a moral sense. It is between those who want to blow up the world, and those who want to change it; between those who want to fix Obamacare, and those who want to blast it to smithereens. 

But either way, the only thing Biden is likely to be able to do in terms of helping heal the divide, will be in bringing his own supporters to some kind of understanding as to the actions they need to take and the direction they need to move. But since his supporters tend to see things in left/right terms – meaning their focus is on resisting movement to the right or left – that should work to his advantage. Because healing this divide may have little if anything to do with changes in policy. 

And to the extent that’s true, it means it is not so much about dropping the idea of a single-payer health care system, as it is in finding ways of presenting and implementing that kind of change in a way that will appeal to those on the other side. And at its core, that means finding ways of understanding what Trump voters are thinking, where they’re really coming from, and what their needs truly are. 

If progressives can do that, they have a chance of presenting their kind of change in a way that shows Trump voters what’s in it for them. And that may not be as difficult as some seem to think. Because, as has been pointed out many times, the policies of progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are really aimed at the kinds of Americans who voted for Trump. So it may just be a matter of presenting policies and generally interacting with Trump voters in more positive, productive ways

So instead of telling them they need to swallow progressive policies such as the Green New Deal because they’re good for the planet (which to them means rich people like you) you need to show them how those policies will be good for them – especially if you can show them ways they might even be better for them than for you. 

But to do that Democrats need to understand the needs of those who voted for Trump, as well as how they see the world. And right now there is little if any of that kind of outreach and introspection going on – just as was the case in the aftermath of 2016. Which is why progressives still do not seem to have learned anything of value about Trump voters over the last four years.

And to see how that can play out in real time, take a look at the November 15^th edition of Reliable Sources on CNN.

Host Brian Stelter spent most of that show discussing a single pressing issue, and one that is a common theme of the program – the proliferation of fake news. 

In his intro to the show he indicated that the media generally only addresses one side of the fake news issue – the supply side – which means all the networks and other sources out there spreading knowingly false information. He then advanced the notion that we need to start talking about the demand side of the equation, asking “Why is there demand? Why do so many people want to consume these lies?”

He then turned to his panel of experts and proceeded to answer that question – only not in the way he’d intended. 

He did it by showing why the demand for fake news was so intense among Trump voters, by demonstrating how the beliefs and opinions of those voters are constantly being ignored. And he did that by ignoring them himself.

Because during the entirety of that discussion, which took up most of the hour-long show, he and his panel of media experts said almost nothing about the people who are demanding that alternative reality and why. 

Instead they talked at length about FOX News and all the outlets now trying to outflank FOX on the right, and about right wing media in general. In other words they spent all their time talking about the supply side of fake news – just as they always have. This, after Stelter spent six or seven minutes decrying that very fact in his intro to the show.

The fact that Stelter and his colleagues were apparently unable to discuss the demand side of fake news in terms of how that demand was being generated, is a rather telling indication of the source of the problem. It tells us that this fake news explosion is in many ways rooted in the way main stream media treats those who are not part of their core audience – mainly because those potential viewers are so unlike members of the media – and in demographically significant ways. 

How could they not be, when members of the media are generally members of the cultural and intellectual elite, certainly as seen by Trump’s base. To them, it’s the elites of the country who dominate the media – the corporate elites, the cultural and intellectual elites, the political elites.

In other words the organizations of main stream media are staffed and run by the very people Trump supporters hate the most. And with mainstream media being the subject of that loathing, and the target of much of what is considered fake news, it becomes very difficult to be truly objective in your understanding and reporting of it. And that makes it an issue that is very difficult for members of the media to talk about in a sincere and open way – as could be said for almost anyone in a position of power. 

In other words, if you are in a position of authority, and therefore in a position to do something about the problem, then almost by definition, you are not likely to be in a position, intellectually, emotionally and otherwise, to actually do something about it.

Which goes a long way in explaining why problems of hyper-partisan divisiveness persist. And that is why we need more people like Charlie Wyatt, my character in The Contrarian Candidate, who is able to gain traction in his efforts to unseat the president, by speaking to Trump’s voters in positive ways they truly understand, and in ways that would hopefully help others, like Brian Stelter and his colleagues, connect with those same voters in more enriching and enlightening ways.

We saw a lot of celebrating on Saturday after the declaration of Biden’s win. But as I watched those celebrations, it occurred to me that a strange kind of victory was being cheered. Because those celebrations seemed strangely incongruous, and in a couple of important ways.

First, it seemed pretty clear that the vast majority in attendance were there to celebrate Trump’s defeat, rather than Biden’s victory. Which makes me believe, as some pollsters have speculated, that Biden’s vote was even more of an anti-Trump vote than the pre-election polls seemed to suggest. And that sentiment certainly seemed to be in evidence in the crowds gathered in the streets. 

“This is so great for democracy.”
“It’s finally over.”
“It’s a great thing for the country.”
“I feel like I can finally breathe again,”

These were the kinds of comments that could be heard from those in the crowd, and in the signs they carried with them. For example, one sign that was often repeated, and appeared as one of the largest signs at the Biden acceptance speech in Wilmington, Delaware, read simply, “You’re Fired.” 

It all reminded me of an ad parody that appeared on Saturday Night Live the week before the election, and was mentioned in my previous blog. At one point in that ad, a voter, played by Pete Davidson, declares, “I wanna vote for Biden, because he’s better, smarter, better and… better…”

In other words, his vote was really about defeating Trump. And the same could be said for much of the voting public. All of which was a sharp contrast from 2008, the last time Joe Biden was on a winning ticket, and the kind of enthusiasm and chanting we heard from the celebrants then. 

This time around there were few, if any, O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma -like chants. And the ones that could be heard, were relatively muted. For the most part what we saw in those massive gatherings was a huge exhalation by the nation, in the belief that the long nightmare might finally be over.

But is it really? A close look at the election results seems to suggest that may still be a ways off. 

Because for that nightmare to truly come to an end, many Democrats believed they needed to see more than just an electoral win. They needed a moral victory as well, a total repudiation of Trump and his ways, by the American people. And they needed that to be stated in a clearly emphatic way. After all, went the thinking, that is the only way we can really move on, and in a way that will put this Trump fever dream behind us.

But the Democrats did not get that moral victory, not by any measure. In fact the repudiation we see in the election results, is as much a rejection of the Democrats and their vision, as it is of Trump and his.

After all, it’s not even clear that Biden was able to surpass, in percentage terms, the combined votes from 2016, of Hillary Clinton and the third part candidates like Gary Johnson. And according to the exit polls the only major positive shift between 2016 and 2020 was among men, at least white men. In fact it seems Trump only lost because he lost ground with white men, and in a big way, with his share dropping by 13 points. 

But among nearly every other major demographic group, he gained ground. And as with all Trump-related polling, that shift is probably more substantial than the exit polls seem to suggest. Still, what those polls do show, should be troubling enough for most Democrats. 

For example, Trump gained 7% among both Black men and women, and even gained support among Latinos. But what is perhaps most shocking and perplexing, is that even though Trump lost to Biden among white college-educated men, he gained eight percentage points among white college-educated women, to the point where he actually won that group.

Let me say that again, because I think it bears repeating. After four years of living with a president, who many, if not most, regard as racist, misogynistic, incompetent, dishonest, narcissistic, corrupt, and with all manner of other seemingly disqualifying characteristics, most white college-educated women voted for Trump. That is stunning, especially when you consider that their white male counterparts did not. And it says a lot about how far the nation has to go in its healing, and how little we know about what is really happening in the country. Because there are clearly forces at play here, that no one really seems to understand. 

And if this election tells us one thing, it’s that we’d better find a way to start understanding those forces. If not, we might end up right back to where we were four years ago. 

Except, of course, that this time around Donald Trump will not be such a disruptive and divisive force… yeah right.

And while this may be nothing new, the reason I bring it up is because it means the next few months and beyond are going to be something of a test for the media. 

Throughout the past four years those in the media have been unified in their message, having regularly and predictable recited their pledge of allegiance to the cause:

“Well of course we have to cover Trump, and of course we have to respond to every one of his boneheaded Tweets. He’s the president.”

Well he’s no longer the president, or at least he won’t be for long. And that represents a challenging dilemma for the media – whether or not to continue to milk their sacred cash cow. And it will be interesting to see how much willpower they have, how well those in the media are able to resist the pull of the shiniest of the shiny objects, in order to wean themselves of their addiction to Trump and his hyper-partisan hyperbole.

I’m old enough to remember a similar quandary some twenty years ago following the sudden death of Lady Di, an event that triggered a non-stop news cycle that lasted for weeks on end. But just as the story was beginning to fade, Mother Theresa, a truly sainted woman, died in Calcutta. And having just given wall-to-wall coverage to Lady Di, a woman who was famous solely because she married well, that presented the media with a huge dilemma. 

In the end they knew they had no choice but to pack up their gear amid the glamour of London and Paris, and head off to the squalor of Calcutta. They clearly didn’t like it, but they knew they had to go. 

And the media now faces a similar dilemma. Only this time the stakes are so much higher. This time it isn’t about celebrating the life of a saint. It’s about saving the soul of a nation, and by extension perhaps the entire modern world – with it’s global economy, and global trading system, United Nations, World Health Organization, Paris Climate Accord, and a thousand other international bodies and treaties that make up the modern world – all of which now hang in the balance. And they have only a few days to decide on a course of action.

Are they going to continue to focus their attention on Donald Trump, that shiniest of shiny objects, or are they going to get down in the details, and stick with the more mundane affairs of Boring Old Joe? Only the next few days and weeks will tell.

But my guess is… well, read on …

Donald Trump is not going to just go away. Of that we can be sure. Which means we are not yet off the hook, and are going to have to continue to find ways of getting to the bottom of the Trump phenomenon. 

And counterintuitive as it may seem, that means accepting the fact that it is not just about Trump, that what has happened to the country over the past few years is not just about him. 

He likes to think it’s all about him, just as he likes to think he is the reason for everything that happens. And for some mystifying reason much of the rest of the world seems to like to think that too.

So the first thing we should probably do, is to stop giving him that satisfaction. But we can only do that if we allow ourselves to see that he is more a symptom than a cause of the problems now seen throughout the country and the rest of the planet – problems which his presence has merely exposed. All of which means those problems are not going to go away just by getting rid of him. Though admittedly that wouldn’t be a bad first step.

But ridding the country and the world of him is going to be more complicated than simply voting him out of office. Because it also means ridding ourselves and the country of those issues, attitudes, and dynamics that put him there in the first place. And that means finding ways to see the true complexity of the world, rather than the simplicity of the black and white, right and wrong, good and bad view he was able to exploit and then help invigorate – the one we have become accustomed to using over the past few years – especially in the political realm. And yes, we have all being doing that.

come up with a more nuanced view

That narrow, simplistic view is a big part of the reason for the mess in which we now find ourselves. So if we are ever going to extricate ourselves from that mess, we are going to need to come up with a more nuanced view of what is truly going on in the world, as well as what we can do to make that world better. After all, how can we expect to come to any kind of agreement about the forces at play and how to impact those forces, when we live in a world we don’t really seem to understand? 

And that lack of understanding goes beyond the rather subjective and nuanced issues of the social and political realm, to the more practical and objective aspects of our modern world. And to see the truth in that, we need not look any further than our global economy and the experts who study it. I’m talking about the thousands, perhaps millions of professionals from around the planet, many of whom have been striving for decades to understand the economic forces that shape our global world. 

most of them can’t predict what will happen any more accurately than darts on a dart board

Yet those experts can’t even begin to agree on what is going on at any one point in time, never mind what is about to happen – to the stock market, or the price of oil, or the bond market, or any of the multitude of other measures and factors that drive our global economy. In fact as individuals, most of them can’t predict what will happen any more accurately than darts on a dart board. And we’re talking about what will happen today or tomorrow, never mind next month or next year or next decade. 

They just don’t know, and for the most part are really just guesstimating. And that same lack of certainty and understanding can be found in every aspect of our modern world.

That is nothing new of course. The world has always seemed largely inexplicable to us. 

But with all the progress we have made over the last century or two, one would think we’d begin to feel a greater sense of understanding. After all, with all our advances in science, we know so much more than we ever have. And as a result, we as individuals know more than ever before. 

So why do we feel so at sea so much of the time? Why do we seem to feel more confused than ever, about what is happening in our world?

That sense of unease is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that while our vast store of knowledge does provide us with many answers, it also leaves us with many more questions. As the saying goes, “The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.” 

And we now live in a world boiling over with information, which leaves us feeling overwhelmed – not only by the fire hose of information constantly coming at us – but also by the feeling that there is so much out there we need to know, but do not. And that leaves each of us to struggle to find the answers, or at the very least to find others who can help us understand what is truly going on. 

And that is where Donald Trump comes in.

And what makes his appeal so inviting to so many, is that we have no one else to turn to to help us sort it all out, no one who can tell us what to look for, what’s important and what’s not – at least no one we feel we can truly trust. 

And that is mainly a result of the lack of faith we now have in our institutions, from political to journalistic to academic and beyond. And while that loss of faith has been happening for centuries, the trend has really accelerated over the last few decades. Tony, one of the characters in my novel has some views on that, which I think might help bring it into perspective. So I’ll end with his thoughts. 

What he’s reflecting on in this passage, is the fact that as a society we had lost our faith in those institutions we formerly relied upon to shape our opinions. As he sees it:

“Political parties had lost that power because of the public’s newly acquired awareness of the sausage making process, often having access to as much information as those in power. Corporations had lost their power because of the way they had come to treat their employees – no longer promising a job for life, one with healthy working conditions, to go with a healthy salary and benefits…

So where else could individuals go for guidance? Most were left only with their houses of worship. Which was perhaps why the religious right had become such a powerful political force in the country. But Tony knew as well as anyone, that for most Americans faith in God and church had waned, especially over the previous few decades. And to Tony that seemed to indicate how, once again, a glut of knowledge and information could lead to unforeseen circumstances.

Having access to all that information meant that many of us now saw too much and knew too much about our place in the universe, to believe in the kind of god our forbearers once worshiped. Which meant that, in a sense, science had “cured” us of our faith in those ancient beliefs and institutions.

All of which told Tony we had lost our faith in religious institutions in much the same way we had lost our faith in other institutions, and for the same reasons. We just knew too much – and so in a sense had become too smart for our own good.”

Next… part TWO…

My previous blog ended with a quote from my novel The Contrarian Candidate. And that quote itself ends with the idea that we, as individuals and as a society, have become too smart for our own good.

And one of the things that makes that seem so, is that even as we live in a world flooded with information and overflowing with vast quantities of accumulated knowledge, we are not necessarily left with the wisdom and other deeper kinds of understanding we need to navigate that world. 

Science is not necessarily able to answer all our questions about the nature of the world in which we live, which leaves us with no other ways of understanding.

In part that is because science, the source of all that knowledge, is not necessarily able to answer all our questions about the nature of the world in which we live. And with science being our only source of knowledge, we are left with no alternatives, no other ways of understanding, and therefore no ways of filling the gaps. 

And while we, as humans, have other ways of navigating and making sense of our world – such as intuition and common sense – those ways have become increasingly overwhelmed by the more tangible and rational forms of understanding, which science has taught us. And as a result, we have more or less left those more innate forms of understanding behind, to the point where they are now largely seen as irrational. 

Those time-worn ways of understanding our world are not irrational – they are non-rational.

But as writer/philosopher John Ralston Saul points out, those time-worn ways of understanding our world are not irrational – they are non-rational. And in a world that does not seem entirely understandable through rational thought alone, they still do offer us value – that despite being generally disrespected, even ridiculed by the world of science.

As my character Tony puts it:

“Science had become the new religion. And it did not believe in anything – except science. As a result, we were no longer allowed to believe in anything that could not be stuffed into a scientific formula. Which left compassion, morality, higher purpose, and other foundations of the human spirit completely out of the equation.”

Of course, relying on science and rationality for our understanding of the world would not be a problem, were science able to explain everything we need to know about that world. But as I point out in my previous blog, that does not seem to be the case. 

No doubt we have made great progress in our scientific understanding of much of the world we live in. And while science may not be able to predict such things as the speed and direction of the economy, it has come a long way in predicting the speed and direction of catastrophic events such as hurricanes. In fact we are light years ahead of where we were a hundred years ago, or even a few decades ago. And we’re talking about some of the most complex forces shaping our natural world. 

It is not so much what god has built that we still find so difficult to comprehend. It is the things we create that are causing most of the disruption and confusion. 

And that is why in the previous blog, when describing our lack of real world understanding, I used the phrase “modern world.” Because in many ways it is the most recent human-made changes in our world we have difficulty wrapping our heads around. Which tells us it is not so much what god has built that we still find so difficult to accommodate and comprehend. It is the things we create that are causing most of the disruption and confusion.  

And that’s because the world we’ve made for ourselves building by building, street by street, city by city, nation by nation, is composed of a vast array of complex and competing forces, each of which interact with each other in so many complex and competing ways. And there are no real underlying principles upon which those building blocks seem to stand – other than what works. In other words, our world is founded upon whatever has been able to rise out of the roiling swamp of human ingenuity. All of which makes that world nearly impossible to understand, even when one of its underlying forces can be isolated – never mind when considering all of them tangled together in a massively complex nation state. 

Then add to that the fact that we are now part of a global world, in which each country with all its complex and interacting forces inevitably becomes tangled together with the complex and interacting forces of all the other nations combined. All of which leaves us with a massive jungle of forces that has become far too complex for anyone to understand, never mind those of us who have real lives to tend to, and other important concerns to occupy our minds. Besides, if the experts can’t understand even their narrow slice of it, then how are we to understand the totality, and in a way that allows us to make some kind of sense of it for ourselves and our families?

That is one reason we often feel forced to turn to more simplified forms of understanding, in order to, in a sense, cut the world down to size. That is one way to make the world seem smaller, and less tangled and complex. And even though it may leave us with a much more narrow, one-sided and, one could say, partisan understanding, that may be the only way for us as individuals to understand our all-too-complex world. 

Not only does that allow us to look mainly at one side of each complex issue, it allows us to feel the support of all those who view the world in the same way.

Because at least with that approach we are able to see the world in a way we can more easily comprehend, and as a result, see it as one that is more comfortable to inhabit. Because not only does that allow us to look mainly at one side of each complex issue, it allows us to feel the support of all those who view the world in the same way and from the same side we do. 

But while that may make us feel cloaked in a greater sense of comfort and understanding, it comes at a cost. Because although it may feel as though we are relying on our intuition and common sense – our non-rational thinking – to achieve that comfort and understanding, what is often happening is that we are being led down a path built entirely upon irrational thinking. 

And we are vulnerable to that, because our non-rational thinking muscles are weak from lack of practice. So just as with everything else in this complex confusing world, we are forced leave it up to others to help show us the way.

Not only does it leave us with a divided world, it leaves us highly vulnerable to exploitation by the likes of Donald Trump.

And the downside of that approach is obvious, and becoming more obvious by the day. Because not only does it leave us with a divided and often hyper-partisan world, it leaves us highly vulnerable to exploitation by the likes of Donald Trump. 

My character Tony explains how that can occur, and what happens when we have no way of truly understanding what is happening in our world, and feel we have nowhere to turn for answers:

“And that left many of us feeling like homeless children, wandering the streets, starving for food, shelter, and most of all, a sense of belonging; looking for anyone who could make us feel empowered, and in the process make us feel a part of something bigger than ourselves. So we surfed the Internet looking for someone who could show us the way, someone who would help guide us through such incredibly difficult and confusing times – perhaps the most difficult times of our lives, and of our country.”

Tony knew that as humans we needed that sense of belonging, that sense of believing in something, anything that could help make sense of an ever more confusing world. But instead, all we wandering urchins found were thieves and gangsters who used us in any way they could, and always for their own ends. And why wouldn’t they? After all, they didn’t believe in anything either. 

What made them seem strong, was that they had a stronger belief in themselves than did those around them. And that seemed to be the only belief worth having in the world of today, the only belief that seemed worthy of respect in such complex and chaotic times. And that in turn made it seem as though those self-serving demagogues had something to offer, something to believe in, something for others to follow. Which was why so many of our fellow citizens were willing to fall in line.

One of the reasons we are forced to narrow our view of the world in order to make it a more comfortable place to live, is that our minds and bodies have not kept up with the massive changes we have exposed them to, especially over the past century.

As a result, features such as our fight/flight reaction and other physiological attributes are no longer ways of keeping us healthy and alive. Instead, they are making many of us sick, by causing toxic levels of anxiety over issues that are not life threatening, and may not even be all that dangerous. And that is because we are still reacting to a world that no longer exists, and in ways our tribal ancestors would have – ways that were often created to help preserve the safety and integrity of the tribe. 

Meanwhile we live in a world that is far too complex to function within the such simplistic and tribal political confines. 

Those tribal ways of looking at our world have become totally obsolete.

As my main character Charlie Wyatt explains, those tribal/nationalistic ways of looking at ourselves, our relationships, and our world, have become totally obsolete:

“After all, how can we continue to think that way, when we can no longer live our entire lives within our own little world, with each of our tribes in its own little valley? We now live in a global age – with a global economy and a global climate and a global culture, creating a single solitary global world.”

That is why we feel our political institutions are failing us.

That reality is likely why many of us now feel that our political and other institutions are failing us. Which itself points to one more aspect of our world which Trump has not only exposed, but exploited – and in a very big way. 

Because it seems pretty clear the Republican party is no longer the party it once was. It is now Trump’s party. And Trump, as a political actor, has become a force unto himself. As a result, the kinds of issues Americans face in the political realm are not so much about border security or COVID-19 or any other external threat to the nation. The issue is Trump. And the partisan dividing line is Trump. So it is not so much one party versus another, or one point of view versus another. It is Trump versus anti-Trump.

Which means the institutions we once relied upon for resolving our political disputes are no longer in a position to do that, certainly not in the way they might have a few decades ago. And they may never be in that position again – not when you consider the direction the country and the world have been heading in recent years. 

Politics as we now know it is primarily being practiced on the platforms of social media. 

In part that is because politics as we now know it is not being practiced in the halls of congress. Instead, it is being practiced on the platforms of social media. 

That is where the so-called arguments are being laid out and opinions formed, because that is where the most influential debate is taking place. And as a result, that is where even our politicians look to determine their thinking on the issues – if not their approach to politics as a whole.

Which means it is mainly the nature of those platforms and the tenor of the discussions they generate, that have created the no-compromise, no-deal-making kind of politics that now dominates congress, and increasingly parliaments and other political forums around the world.

If the medium is the message, the message of our social media is anger, hatred, chaos and dysfunction.

That is what our technology has done to us. That is how it has shaped, and is shaping our world. As Marshall McLuhan put it a half century ago, “The medium is the message.” And the message of our social media is anger, hatred, chaos and dysfunction.

And that is just one more reason we feel so totally at sea in the world in which we live. It is a world that is threatening us in whole new ways, and in ways we do not have the capacity to deal with, or even fully comprehend. As a result, our natural reactions are letting us down. Our physiology is letting us down. Our common sense and intuition are letting us down. And fact-based, rational, scientific thinking seems to be no help at all.

Which seems to suggest that bringing some semblance of order and functionality, if not comradery to our world, means we can not continue to beat each other over the head with facts and counter-facts – let alone factoids, alternative facts and pseudo-facts. Instead, we need to find a way to interact with each other in ways that no longer trigger the kinds of responses that are making us sick, and even killing us.

So how do we do that? How do we get ourselves out of this mess? 

We need to take a good long look at the effects of social media.

The first thing we need to do is to take a good long look at the one aspect of our world that is doing more than any other to create the kinds of socio-political problems that now dominate our world. And that means taking a look at the effects of social media. And we need to do that in a way that will allow us to discover what we can do to make those platforms less vitriolic, partisan and corrosive – in other words, less destructive of ourselves and our world.

And while there has been a lot of discussion around that very subject in recent years, that only serves to point out the seriousness with which we see the problem, as well as the ineffectiveness with which we have been dealing with that problem. If our solutions were so effective, then why do those problems still persist? 

Because the truth is, none of what has been tried has had the effect we are looking for, and the effect we need to see if the world is once again going to be a healthy place in which to live. 

There are ways to solve the problems of social media that would create maximum benefit with minimum disruption.

Yet there are ways to do what needs to be done, ways that have never been tried or even much discussed – ways that have a chance to work better than anything now being tried. Because these approaches give us the opportunity to solve the problems of social media in a manner which would firstly; be acceptable and beneficial to us all, and secondly; generate the maximum benefit, while causing minimal disruption of our world and our lives. 

So that is the next direction we need to look in order to find ways to create a healthy and more functionally perfect world. We will take a long look at that social media juggernaut, and how we can make it less of a threat to our health and well being, both for us as individuals, and for our world as a whole.

It started out as a bit of wishful thinking, and a thought experiment of sorts: What would happen if a political comedian challenged Trump in the presidential race – and did it for real? The goal would not be to win of course, but just to use his comedic skills to trump Trump, in a sense, by doing to him what Trump has done throughout his life – belittle, berate and verbally beat to a pulp anyone who gets in his way.

And it might even work politically, I thought, given that a comedic attack might be the only way to effectively neutralize Trump’s attack mode barbs – his one rhetorical tool and his one real advantage over the politicians he’s faced.

But after thinking about it for a few days, and asking anyone who would listen, “Why doesn’t somebody actually do this,” I suddenly thought to myself, “Wait a minute, why shouldn’t I do it – not for real of course, but in a novel.” And long story short, a few weeks later I began to write.

But before long I started to see obstacles to my plan. The first was the realization that I could not actually use Trump as an on-screen (so to speak) character, or even use his name. Well duhhh, who would have thought?

But oddly enough, that did not turn out to be nearly the obstacle I anticipated. In fact I think it may have been one of the prime reasons my story worked as well as it did.

I see it as similar to what happened with the movie Jaws. Many critics believe one of the reasons that movie turned out to be so frightening, was that the mechanical shark did not work very well, and couldn’t be used in most of the scenes. So we were left with only that chilling dunt-duh music to warn us that the hungry beast was on the prowl.

… the things he says and does, makes him seem more ridiculous, even to the point of appearing comical at times.

But in the case of The Contrarian Candidate, rather than making Trump seem scarier, I think the fact that we only hear about the things he says and does, makes him seem more ridiculous, even to the point of appearing comical at times. And perhaps more importantly, it allows us to look at the forces that surround him, in a deeper, more objective way – because our thoughts and feelings about Trump the man, are not as likely to get in the way.

I’m not sure what that says about Trump, or the book I wrote about him. But either way, that was just the start of what I learned from writing my novel and telling that story.

I also learned what we have all been learning during the current political season, that there is no point in arguing the facts with Trump, or getting into any kind of logical, rational debate on the issues. It just doesn’t work with him. And there is no way to use that approach to gain a real advantage. To me debating him in that way, is akin to trying to discuss astrophysics with at two year old. In the end it inevitably degenerates into a frustrating pile of nonsense.

But perhaps the most important and enduring lesson I learned from writing the book, resulted from the evolution of the contrarian candidate himself, Charlie Wyatt. In the beginning I thought of him much the way I think of reformed smokers, or new adherents to an important cause. They are generally much more strident in their views on the subject, than those who have been with it for awhile.

So that is how Charlie started out in my mind, with my thinking going something like this, “He’s a Republican. So he voted for Trump, but quickly saw the error of his ways, therefore becoming stridently anti-Trump in his comedy and in his life.”

But along the way I began to see the limits to that characterization, as well as its downside. After all, the purpose of the book was not just to take my pound of flesh for what Trump has done to our world over the past four years. 

What the book ultimately had to be about, was finding a way to get safely past Trump and the whole sorry mess he’s created. 

Which meant the book couldn’t just be about belittling him in every possible way – as much fun as that was to do. No. There had to be much more to the book than that. In fact what it ultimately had to be about, was getting through a truly horrible episode in the country’s history, by finding a way to get safely past Trump and the whole sorry mess he’s created. And ridicule didn’t really seem to do that very effectively, certainly not on its own. 

And the more I thought about that, the more I began to realize that piling on the way Charlie was prone to do, had in fact been part of the reason for Trump’s electoral success. Which made me realize that if I was going to break through the clutter and get to the real issues at hand, I was going to need to stop being so antagonistic in how I saw him – or at least his supporters. Because that narrow, partisan view I’d been holding of them hadn’t gotten me anywhere, in part because it didn’t really help explain anything about what had happened to the country. So I realized I needed to see Trump’s supporters in a different, less partisan light. Or better still, see them in a non-partisan light if possible. And I found I was able to do that through the character of Charlie Wyatt himself.

Because as it turns out, Charlie was born and raised in a small mill town in the heart of Trump country. And as such, his story took me on a journey from his small town roots, to voting for Trump, to waking up with a massive hangover the day after the 2016 election. And I soon realized that it was his finding out that Trump had actually won, that in a sense scared Charlie straight. That is what led him to not only reject Trump, but to straightening out his life as a whole.

The political elite did nothing to change Charlie’s view of Trump. In fact in the end, they practically forced him and those like him, into voting for the man.

And it was only after finding my way to the heart of Charlie’s story, that I gained some understanding of where his vote had come from. And in the process, I began to see how the political elite and others in positions of power, including the media, had done nothing to change Charlie’s view of Trump. In fact in the end, they had practically forced him and those like him, into voting for the man.

And by the end of the book, Charlie had shown me that the best, and perhaps only way to reverse that trend and defeat Trump, was for those like me to quit seeing him in such a partisan light, in fact quit seeing the world as a whole in such partisan terms. And while that may not seem very appealing to those of us who look upon our partisanship as an important form of self-expression, and look at politics in general as a form of entertainment, it is absolutely critical in seeing our way through to a post-Trump world.

And there again, Charlie was able to help me. Because he sees our ability to end hyper-partisanship, in much the way he sees recovery from addiction. In part that’s because that is what he’s been dealing with over the previous three years – all thanks to that massive hangover the morning after the election.

… hyper-partisanship as a powerful addiction, one that forces us to see everything through a partisan lens.

So like his struggle with drugs, Charlie sees our hyper-partisanship as a powerful addiction, one that forces us to see everything through a partisan lens. And as a result, it forces us to demonize everyone who is on the other side, and in some cases even those who are on our side, but are not seen as being partisan enough for us.

In the end Charlie and the rest of the characters in the story are able to show how badly that is working for us. In fact they show us that little by little it is destroying us all, destroying our institutions and our faith in them, destroying our country and our relationships with other countries in the world. In short, it is destroying everything we see around us.

But all is not lost, as you will hopefully see as we explore the other lessons learned while writing this book, along with many other aspects of the coming election. And in the process, hopefully we can have a little fun along the way – at Trump’s expense of course – if only as a way of getting through the weeks and months that lie ahead. 

Next: Part II – Trump is just a sideshow