Yesterday I wrote, “Sometimes our personal perspectives can become out of context with reality.” These words resonate truer today for proving me wrong. Earlier in a blog entitled “A Prescription for Change” I stated the case for the rural vote that has determined this Presidential election. I just underestimated how many rural and obviously not polled voters came forth to cast their vote for the change they wanted. I wrote,

“Overlapping with these racial and ethnic divides are social economic factors that further define both the diversity and contention within America. The mobility inherent in our system has allowed people to concentrate within communities of similar ethnic and social economic identities. It is this concentration phenomenon that has given our political parties the inspiration to develop gerrymandering into an art form. The rural/urban divide, as a result, seems to largely define Party alignments. Population centers like our major cities have no more voice in the House of Representatives than much less populated rural, districts. Should we be surprised that our diversity supports contention in Washington along the lines of race, ethnic origin, and urban/rural communities of like-minded perspectives? Both divisiveness and cultural diversity are very much a part of our context.”

In the past I have written about the cross pollination of liberal/conservative strains between our two political parties. This particular election reminds me of these intermingled strains and of a previous election 176 years ago. In the election of 1840, Martin Van Buren, an incumbent President who had previously served as Andrew Jackson’s Vice President, succumbed to William Henry Harrison, a candidate whose positions were little known and whose status as a victorious general was suspect. The motto for Harrison’s campaign was the memorable line “Tippecanoe and Tyler too.” Tippecanoe was the location where General Harrison was alleged to have won a great military victory. But, in truth, that purported victory was a lie and Harrison’s “hero” stature, a sham. President Elect Trump also had a catchy slogan, “Make America great again,” and promoted himself as a great businessman, while hiding a nearly one billion dollar lost and all subsequent tax returns. In that 1840 upset election the Jacksonian banner, which Van Buren represented, lost to a candidate who represented little more than his brand as a hero. But the parallels between 1840 and 2016 are only on the surface. Certainly, Hillary Clinton presented herself as an extension of Barak Obama, but the President’s policies have only a partial similarity with Jackson’s. Both were “change” candidates. Although Jackson blew up the American banking system that Hamilton had in part envisioned and pushed legislation to control the budding corporate entities, he was also a strict Jeffersonian in his support of state’s rights and a limited Federal government. On the other hand, he was for unions; and was strongly supported by the “locofocos,” the outspoken unionists of his time who also composed the more liberal wing of the Democratic Republican Party. Harrison, by contrast, had no track record on policies. More than this superficial analogy between the 1840 and 2016 elections is the similarity in emotional response. The 1840 election was apocalyptic to Van Buren supporters and to the Jacksonian movement. This morning I saw in the many crying and grimaced faces of Hillary supporters the same reaction to a crushing lost.

Nevertheless both Hillary Clinton and the President addressed the nation today with a message that was not apocalyptic, but hopeful. I feel American history supports their hopeful rhetoric. Remember it required two Republican Presidents to open constructive dialogues with communist China and Russia. And it was Obama who finally moved us closer to universal healthcare by establishing the Heritage Foundation’s mandated healthcare first proposed by Republican Senator Dole. Now we have President Elect Trump who once proclaimed he was in favor of a single payer system. Although the very idea of a truly universal healthcare system is anathema to mainstream Republicans, their nominee for President does not appear controllable by his Party establishment. He has consistently shown himself to be his own man. Also, whereas Clay and Webster supported Harrison as their puppet, Bennett and Ailes may not have as much influence as they did during the campaign. Apart from his abortion and immigration stance, there is little in Trump’s pronouncements that favor current Republican positions. He certainly is not a free trader and more Libertarian than Republican on international engagement. For the most part, our new President Elect’s specific policies are largely unknown because he is a neophyte on the national and international scene. If he leans too heavily on his appointees, he could become a mouthpiece for their positions. But he tends to be unscripted. He claims to have “great judgment.” Well, he can prove the quality of his judgment by listening to all sides of an issue from different perspectives. I think it will be imperative for leaders of both Parties to impress upon him the need for bipartisan consultation. And it will be even more imperative for the groups left out of the Trump coalition to speak up and make their voices heard.

Rural Americans have spoken. What will President Trump do to address their concerns? Other minorities’ voices from Asian, Latino, African American, Muslim, and Native American have also spoken. Although not part of his constituency, will President Trump attempt to listen to them as well? The Alt-right has claimed Trump’s victory as its own. Will President Trump give an ear to them or to the concerns of moderate Republicans? The international community has symbolically shown its reaction to Trump’s victory in crashing markets around the world. Will President Trump assure the world that America will continue to act responsibly on the world stage and continue its constructive leadership? At least, he has begun to address this last question. For the rest, we can only hope and see.

In the last paragraph of “The Case for Optimism,” I stated “. . . there really is no other alternative.” Optimism, I believe, is a quintessential American attribute.