Antidotes for Election Agitation
The Paradox of Power and Surrender (Vol. 4; Issue 44)
Before presenting methods for achieving post-election tranquility, I trigger a tad more anxiety. Consider it storm first, calm later. American voters have never faced such an important election in their lifetimes. No wonder many express catastrophic terror at possible outcomes.
As I recently noted, Trump is unequivocally the most unfit individual EVER to run for President. An abbreviated list of disqualifications includes two impeachments, threatening political opponents, calling journalists enemies, disrespecting women, criminalizing abortion, promising to deport millions of immigrants, spreading propaganda, expecting loyalty like mob bosses, labelling the January 6th insurrection a “day of love,” responding inadequately to the Covid pandemic, denying the 2020 election result, and suggesting Liz Cheney be shot by firing squad. Trump excels at spreading fear and sowing division among the American people.
A recent convert from anti- to pro-Trump status, Elon Musk—insisting his X platform elevates freedom of speech—has posted more than 3,000 times on the site in the last month alone. His tweets support Trump. They feature unfounded claims about the validity of the election. Anyone thinking Musk promotes free speech is delusional. Other billionaires already run in fear from a possible Trump presidency. Both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, owned by billionaires Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos respectively, cowardly avoided endorsing either candidate. They used to endorse candidates. Their avoidant behavior validates fears of authoritarian rule. If Trump wins, they want to be on his good side.
The Wall Street Journal has not endorsed candidates since 1928, but their editorial board published op-eds about each candidate for 2024. They fear Harris lacks sufficient experience; they consider a Trump presidency “risky,” writing, “Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election was appalling… we thought he shouldn’t win the nomination again.”
In contrast, the Economist, a British publication known for its devotion to truth, took a strong stand against Trump. Its editorial board, in a piece titled, “A Second Trump Term Comes With Unacceptable Risks,” writes:
Mr. Trump’s political genius is for turning people against each other. After the death of George Floyd, he suggested the army shoot protesters in the leg. America’s prosperity depends on the idea that people are treated fairly, regardless of their politics; Mr. Trump has threatened to turn the Justice Department on his political enemies… If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Ms. Harris.
Nonetheless, Trump got nominated and Harris rose to power. Both candidates face a more explosive world scene than at any time since World War II. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to kill and maim hundreds of thousands. Israel’s overreaction to the October 2023 Hamas attack rages on. Tensions are high as North Korea sends troops to Russia, relations with China worsen, Europe fears Putin’s future ambitions, and the NATO alliance trembles.
Tomorrow we’ll know, or perhaps we won’t. Maybe it will take days or weeks for confirmation of election results. Perhaps riots will break out. Perhaps, if Harris wins, exuberant crowds will gather, hopeful for a more united, forward-looking America. In the meantime, various ways exist to cool the hot jets fueling your post-election anxieties.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to counteract the primitive thinking dominating the American narrative. Psychoanalyst Melanie Klein (1946) believed that infants, during their first few months of life, utilize so-called “splitting defenses” to organize their stimulus overwhelm. They reduce the world into categories of good and bad. As babies mature into toddlers, they learn to integrate these extremes, to consider life experiences as on a continuum. But adults can also regress into such simplifying, us versus them thinking.
Such splitting is obvious. You’re for Trump or you’re against Trump. The primitive mentality—which Trump openly promotes—needs to end. We all care for our country. We all want to see the chaos of the past few years end. You can seek such moderation by considering the attitudes of “the other side” and seeing your commonalities with them.
A basic strategy for coping with life, traceable to the Stoics, is to assertively manipulate variables under your control, and to let go of the rest. Managing the dichotomy is anything but easy. It requires identifying where power ends and powerlessness begins. But coping with election terrors requires it. Take action where you can; let go of the rest.
That latter phrase, the surrender part, finds support from theologians East and West. You know the clichés: “let go, let God” or “go with the flow.” The Tao De Ching (400BCE, 2006) emphasizes that we humans exist within the broader context of dynamic, unfolding nature. The natural world ebbs and flows, rises and falls, accelerates and slows. Whether Harris or Trump, time will insist the presidency be filled, vacated, and then filled again. Trump’s turning America into an authoritarian dictatorship is unlikely (albeit not impossible). And, even if he did, counteracting forces will quickly emerge.
Another form of hope lies in Hegelian (1807/1977) ideas that history evolves through processes of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. If a Trump presidency serves as an antithesis to Biden’s, then we can expect a dynamic reaction to it. Trump’s worst behaviors, his worst policies, will not go unchallenged. Attorneys specializing in fields ranging from immigration to constitutional law will file lawsuits by the thousands.
Avoiding catastrophic thoughts like “what if Iran develops a nuclear weapon?” or “what if North Korea launches one?” also offers consolation. These are scary possibilities, not present realities. Many think democracy’s balancing act will keep Trump in check, even if he thinks he can operate like a dictatorial, loyalty-insisting Mob boss. The election will turn out as it will. If Trump attempts to challenge the results, the process will eventually resolve. Strive to remain curious.
In any event, tomorrow’s election will play out as it will. We’re powerless until the results come in. These necessarily incomplete suggestions for finding post-election tranquility share in knowing when to act and when to surrender. You can strive for compassionate, integrative thinking; you can anticipate counterbalancing historical forces, and; you can work on both activism and yielding. Meanwhile, we’ll just have to see what happens.
Enjoying this newsletter?
And check out my book, Lover, Exorcist, Critic: Understanding Depth Psychotherapy, available on Amazon.
References
Hegel, G.W.F. (1977). Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. A.V. Miller. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1807).
Lao Tzu. (2006). Tao De Ching. Trans. S. Mitchell. New York: Harper. (Original work created in 400 BCE).
Klein, M. (1946). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 27:99-110.