It has been very interesting over the last few weeks since the U.S. election as I have met with friends and colleagues and community members in the halls at school, in the grocery store and at choir practice.
People on all sides of the political spectrum have asked me about the Trump win.
How did it happen? Did I expect it? Why were the pundits so wrong? What will happen now? Many have suggested that I will be kept very busy over the next few weeks, months and even years analyzing and commenting on the Trump presidency.
I must admit to feeling a bit knocked off balance. I did not expect him to win, although I was not surprised. That statement may seem contradictory but no one who watched Trump's rise to become the nominee of the Republican Party could say that anything was particularly surprising. Each new moment in the bizarre campaign left every pundit saying "well, we didn't expect that to happen!"
Of course, there had been tell tale signs along the way including the Brexit vote, which portended a growing discontent with global markets and market integration, immigration and middle class job loss. The stunned response of the "no" side to the referendum result should have alerted the world that there was an undercurrent of unhappiness and disenfranchisement among many voters in the U.K. and in other places around the world.
So while I was not surprised by the outcome I did still believe that the electoral college would swing in favour of Clinton.
My feelings of being knocked off balance really arise because normally I would feel comfortable writing about "what's next" in the cycle of policy and procedure post an election but I'm pretty sure that most analysts don't really have a clear sense of what's to come.
Whenever campaigns are run on the slogan of "change" without any substantive outline of plans, then it's mostly a "sit and wait to see what happens" scenario. The truth is I'm not sure what changes are coming and I'm not sure Trump really knows either.
I can say that in my observations and in my reading, I am most struck by the hollowness of calls for national unity. In a column I wrote before the election I said that the day after the election would be just as important, maybe more important, than election night itself. The deep divisions that were apparent in American society during the campaign could not have been solved by the election of either candidate but Trump will have much more difficultly trying to reassure nervous minority groups that he has their genuine interests at heart.
What is curious is that I think he is a half-hearted social conservative. He has already backtracked on some social policy - he has said that the issue of gay marriage is "settled" - but he does seems intent on appointing people who have very socially conservative views. While he can claim to want to make America great for everyone it is not so clear that his appointees hold the same vision for national unity.
I suspect that many of his supporters thought that he would soften his position on some of his more controversial policy ideas. The issue is whether or not his appointees will impose values that do not reflect the majority of the American population.
Remember Trump did not receive a mandate in this election. He lost the popular vote. He lost it quite substantially. Yet, with the power of the Republicans in both the House and the Senate there could be a significant shift in the way that the United States represents the diversity of values and opinions.
So it's true that I am going to be watching the next few years with great interest. Like our first past the post electoral system, the electoral college can give the country's leader a great deal power without the mandate of the general population.
The divide in the United States right now is not a gap, it is a chasm. The whole world is, as I said, in a time of "wait and see" as to how the Trump presidency can possibly build a bridge wide enough and long enough to unify a nation.
