The day after the elections: A prediction

Bonnie Willis's picture

I have two boys, and like most boys they love to wrestle. Many times, however, their wrestling turns to full-blown fights. Inevitably, I begin to hear the yelling and stumbling, and within a few minutes one or both of my boys come running to me, red-faced, sweaty, and in tears. One — or both brothers — then starts hurling accusations against the other for things he had done, and the other will do the same.

Before either can finish their arguments, my patented response has become, “Work it out,” and I send them away to resolve their differences. But interestingly, more times than not, within the hour the two boys are back to playing with each other as if nothing had ever happened.

In many ways, our election process reminds me of my two boys. Citizens are intensely passionate about their position and are fighting to assert their rightness. An election, by its very nature, has a way of creating divisions among citizens.

With elections less than 30 days out, I predict the fighting will become even more intense as each side ramps up the virtues of their candidates and positions, and vilifies their opponents. This intensity comes from the fact that many of us recognize that the upcoming election will be one of the most consequential elections in our nation’s history.

After Election Day, however, one thing is certain. No matter who wins, or what legislation is passed or not passed, there will be intense anger and hurt feelings by a significant number of our citizens.

For some, the outcome of this election will be absolutely devastating and they will feel like they have “lost the country.”

Conversely, some will feel overjoyed seeing that their candidates and positions have won the day, and they will feel like they have “saved the country.”

How we express our joy in the outcome, and how we “bring into the fold” those who have lost will surely determine whether or not these United States can be considered one American family.

Some may argue that this notion of an American family is virtually impossible given the current ideological divide.

However, our nation’s history has been rife with ideological differences, and guided — or “parented” — by our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, we have managed to “work it out” and retain our great democratic republic.

We recognize that despite our intense differences, our strength as a united country supersedes many of our ideological differences.

Just like my boys, there will be arguments and fights, but in the end we recognize that we are family and we will get through this election season.

[Bonnie B. Willis is co-founder of The Willis Group, LLC, a Learning, Development, and Life Coaching company here in Fayette County and lives in Fayetteville along with her husband and their five children.]

DAB
DAB's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2012
frightening

In Fall 2008, my daughter was a freshman at Univ. of West GA. She told us about all of the vandalism by Obama supporters following his win. It's frightening to think of what will happen if he loses.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
DAB, mine was, too...

...@ UWG then, and told me of horrendous racist banners on frat houses and stuff thrown at black frats & sororities. So, you see it goes both ways...

TheRealityCheck
TheRealityCheck's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2009
There you go....

Now you're starting fear mongering.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ms. Willis - We

We need only fear those that separate us into groups to serve their need for power.

How well we come together as a country is determined by the character of our people. If more people had your common sense and hopeful attitude our country will be safe for generations.

Thanks again for your insights.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO/separate for power
Quote:

We need only fear those that separate us into groups to serve their need for power

Interesting comment from one who suggests to take away the right to vote based on ones employer. (and may not understand why there would be resistance from women and people of color in this country.). In our history, there has been a record of one group against giving another group the 'power' of the vote. In the past this was based on sex and race. Now we are being introduced to an ideology that would restrict the right to vote based on ones employer. It is important to watch this thought carefully. Thanks for sharing. Teachers and all civil servants take note . (PTCO in a past discussion suggested that people who worked for the government should not 'vote'.)

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
DM is not a right,,

I've pointed this out before, and will do so again. Voting is NOT a right!
It is regulated, it is limited, it is removable.

Allow me to explain. A Child in America, (citizen or not) has the right to speak, to practice a religion or not, to have a trial by jury, to have protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. They also have the right to defend themselves with ARMS, what they do not have is "the right to vote"
Ya see RIGHTS are something EVERY human has simply from being born, "rights" are not something someone government or otherwise can bestow on another, Also a RIGHT is an Individual thing, Voting REQUIRES a group,
and none of us have the RIGHT to make a group provide the individual with
a "right" (well not until Obamacare, thus the REAL evil of Obamacare)
The Voting age was 21 and then as a people we decided 18 was old enough.
At one time Blacks and Women were not allowed to vote, but as a people we saw the error of that way.

Each individual state sets up it's own Voting Laws, as to when where and how, along with voting methods, counting procedures, and determining the eligibility of those who vote, See that last one/ Eligibility? a RIGHT has no eligibility.. It simply exist.

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.... the U.S. is one of just 11 nations among 120 or so constitutional republics/democracies that do not guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
QC - Perhaps DM

has not read the Constitution of the United States?

Or perhaps, she would simply like to eliminate it altogether, as most socialists would like to do to fulfill their "vision".

DM is correct, I think the vote should be limited to those that don't derive their incomes from government.

I am certain that nearly all government workers would take exception to this view. It is not surprising that anyone that can vote themselves provision from someone else would not want to do so. Including DM.

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
Voting restrictions

I for one have absolutely NO problem with the idea that
those that receive ANY source of their "income" from the public treasury
EXCEPT ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY or Honorably discharged vets are restricted from voting in Federal elections, state and local, imo are different matters
as it's not the State or Locals that fund these "legal" thief programs

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Does the Constitution and/or it's amendments

Designate the 'privilege' to vote to women and people of color?

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
DM Constitution

Yes Ma'am The :
15Th ratified 2/3/1870
Brings down the Race, Color, or previous condition of Servitude as a Voting
Disqualification

The 19th ratified 8/18/1920 Removed gender as a disqualification (Wyoming had independently done this in 1880, I bring this up to SHOW Voting is a States issue NOT a federally protected Right0

the 26th Amendment ratified 7/1/1971 lowered the age requirement to 18 years old.
This age attainment is written proof of Law that Voting is NOT an inalienable Right

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
DM: Nope

Constitution+amendments state you cannot deny people voting based on conditions such as race, religion, sex, being slaves at one time, not paying a poll tax or taking a literacy test, etc., but nowhere has it ever been stated that people have a "right to vote."

It's basically left up to the states individually which is why in most states felons aren't allowed to vote and there are guidelines about registering in order to vote, residency and citizenship requirements, etc.

I can about guarantee you that a significant majority of Americans have no idea about this issue either.

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
Actually NUK

After the Federalist War in which the Federal Government won control over states rights (death of the 10th) The 15, 19 and 26th Amendments do in fact say "Right to vote" this language cause serious problems in 2000, The SCOTUS
then made a near unanimous decision that Voting is in fact NOT a Federally Protected (Constitutional) right

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Q

I'm glad you 'found' those words in the amendments to the Constitution. I agree, we need to 'read' this document periodically to see just what those words say. . . Not what others have would want us to believe what it does or does not say.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Nuk

Agreed. Most people don't have a clue. How silly of us to call a bill the 'Voting Rights Bill or Act.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=100

Let's rename it Voting Privilege Act,

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
DM Voting Rights Act

There is a reason it is called an ACT rather than Amendment, this ACT is NOT Constitutional Law as it is NOT an Amendment to the Constitution as is say the 13th Amendment.
This is a BILL signed which holds NO CONSTITUTIONAL Authority over the States
These US Codes are how politicians have been circumventing with judicial "permission" the US Constitution, ever since George Washington violated the Constitution in 1792 during the Whiskey Rebellion. Thomas Jefferson (my personal favorite Founder) did the same thing with the Treasury in the Louisiana Purchase.
Currently local jurisdictions are using US Code to undermine the 2nd Amendment

Politicians and Judges gets away with this crap simply because the Governed WILL NOT READ THEIR LAW of PROTECTION (Constitution) and then MAKE with force if necessary politicians remain with-in their confines of said Constitution

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Students of the Constitution

Find out that our Constitution is a living / working document open to interpretation. This is why the Supreme Court is such an important aspect of our 'government'. I wonder why the governmental experts in 1964 didn't call the act The Ilegal Act of Denying Citizens to Vote. Interesting use of the English language. Years ago this debate was held in many classrooms. Usually those who advocated for 'states rights' pointed out your view. Are we really going back there in 2012?

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
The "Open to Interpretation" part...

Should concern every American. The next president will probably have one and possibly two supreme court appointments.

As far as "States Rights", our Constitution has never changed on that point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Consti...

Of course if Obama is reelected it will be a moot point as he will just "Go around Congress" and get what he wants through "executive orders". http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/14/obama_where_congress_i... -GP

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
GP Intrepretation

THIS issue imo should concern EVERY American EVERYDAY, not just when a Socialist and Progressive are looking to sit at the helm,,and appoint judges
We have Judges right here in Fayette County that WILL follow US Code over the US Constitution, not because they're Communist or Fascist, or Republicrats.
but simply because THEY CAN. They do so with the Thanks of the citizens,
(until that citizen is in THAT judges court).
I have a love hate for Lawyers and Judges, most of the time they fall into the HATE category, then all of a sudden my mouth and or Constitutional actions thrust me into their world and then Lawyers and (Constitutional) Judges fall into the LOVE category, but I digress....

Until such time as WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND our Constitutional Protections not just every 4 years or every other year, but DAILY heck even HOURLY
the guy in the Oval Office, honestly makes little to no difference.
This "Hope and Change" resides with US individually, and NO ONE ELSE
Sermon over, climbing down off my stump, and gonna go Ride my Horse,,talk to y'all later tonight!
QC

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
The US Constitution

IS NOT A "LIVING" ever changing document !!!!
If has a written Constitutional means to be CHANGED
but THAT is a LONG process, not open to fickle terms of
Politicians or Judges.
DM, allow me this question, IF is it such a "living" document
why then has it been AMENDED 27 TIMES???
Why didn't some judge just rule, Slavery is illegal
Why didn't some judge just say, Hey income tax IS constitutional
in 1898 Income tax was found UNconstitutional, (thus the horrible progressive plan income tax imo)
Why didn't a judge just say , NO y'all can't repeal the 18th, I like sober folks...
The Constitution is LAW, written in English (Common English for that matter simply because the Founders wanted the "common man" to be able to read and understand what they had done If you will notice the Declaration was Written in His Majesties English) This whole notion of Judges "intercepting" what the Founders meant and where they cam to their conclusions is just an act of Superiority over the subjects.
The Founding Father Democratically under Republican Law VOTED
to say EXACTLY what is written in the Constitution, and until such time 2/3's of the States and 3/4's of Congress AGREE to NEW language (Amendment Process) The Constitution by Law CAN NOT BE CHANGED,,,,or so that's how it's supposed to work, this SH.T Government we have today is constitutionally unrecognizable (and NO this is NOT just Obama's doings, in may ways, The often quoted Reagan is just a guilty as Obama, when it comes to this issue).
DM also let me say, I am not deluded, I KNOW the VAST majority of Americans neither want nor would support a reduced Fully Constitutionally Restrained Government, meaning this for me is not a "Bad ole democrat" issue, it's a BOTH party issue. and I KNOW I am in a itty bitty minority which is why I bother to Type AS WRITTEN when I'm on my stump pontificating on the virtues of the AS WRITTEN Constitution

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Q

The ' amendments' make it possible that this document does not die because it is unchangeable and outdated. It lives to meet the current needs of a country and citizens based on the founding principles.

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
DM

Ma'am, I can not disagree with your statement
"""The ' amendments' make it possible that this document does not die because it is unchangeable and outdated. It lives to meet the current needs of a country and citizens based on the founding principles."""

However; the genius behind the Constitution is they knew times would change,
and they set in place to "keep the Constitution Alive" (relevant)
WHEN politicians and or Judges side step these constitutional Processes the system fails and is damaged, over 230 years of side stepping this process, we end up with the fiasco THING we have in Washington DC. and Miss DM
this IS OUR FAULT, not yours, not you party, not some politician, but this EVIL rest squarely on MY* shoulders, and my other 300 Million Countrymen

* Even thought not 100% grammatically correct; in this conversation use MY in Third Person

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Qualla.. You will never get the point across to DM..

.. her ideology precludes her ever being able to understand the concepts of our Constitution as it was originally intended to be. To her and the rest of the Progressives the Constitution is actually a hindrance to their goals of a Socialist Utopia where social justice and fairness (as they see it) reigns and outcomes are equal and guaranteed.

They see the Constitution as a set of "guidelines" to be ignored whenever convenient and used as a hammer when they so choose.

This is not the first time this issue has reared it's head with DM.. I suspect it won't be the last.

I do admire your tenacity however. Be careful though.. she will call you a racist for disagreeing with her... hate for you to take my title.

TheRealityCheck
TheRealityCheck's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2009
Don't worry, you're not alone

Good 'ol boys never think they're racist.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Ahh another Race Hustler has reared it's ugly head...

...welcome Reality check.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
no

she either got another ID or one of her sons.

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
SL

All you say about DM might be true,,, However, being a stubborn SOB
I'll have to learn this for myself. 'As to being called a Racist,,,
ROTFLMAO,, I assure you, I've been called much worse,,often..
As a child, I really did think (in English) that Mountain Nigger was how
Cherokee was said in english, Only after moving to Fayette Co and attending Woodward did I learn "Mountain Nigger" was a supposed insult...hurled by those that, Today, Wished like Hell they had MY knowledge of "natural" things
Plants, medicines, and other things,
I was taught something by the Missionary to the Boundary,and hold this idea to this day
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but WORDS have NO power, until I give them power

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Agreed..Qualla

The insults only have meaning if you allow them to be.

Sort of used to it myself...

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
DM: Like I said before

There is NOTHING in the Constitution or any amendments(including the Voting Rights Act) that gives anyone the right to vote. Period. That is a very established fact that is easily determined by reading.

The Voting Rights Act forbids denying people from voting due to several conditions like race, poll tax, etc. Nowhere does it state that anyone has a right to vote.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
So, I guess

DM hasn't read the Constitution.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
PTCO, Sadly....

just the Atlanta Constitution.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
MOC - lol

That's funny.

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
We are NOT a Democratic Republic

Or at least that was not the form of government set up by the founding fathers.
We do not elect the President to Vise President, this is done through the
Electoral College system. Until the horrible 17th was Ratified Senators were appointed either by Governors or State Legislators, The House was the individual's representation in Washington.
ALL of the Founding Fathers feared a Democracy or any semblance of a Democracy to the point that in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution they required the United States to be a Republican form of Government.

As to the rest of your writings, yes the day after is not going to be pretty, I would go so far as to suggest that if the current occupier of the White House is handed his eviction notice, Riots are more than likely all across the Country. One this is certain, who ever looses, the ONLY people who will make out like bandits are the lawyers that file suits by 9am Nov 7th
QC

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Riots?

I wonder how much money will be used to make that a reality - like the money that was given to the Morehouse students back in the day to protest against MLK? It's sad that money is used effectively to misguide and misuse. Will the KKK riot? Hmmmmmm.

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
DM

Personally I hope the klan does riot, All the Legal excuse the cops needs to "end their membership"

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Q

Understood, but I still support their right to free speech as I'm sure you do. Living the words of our Constitution is not always easy. . . But even though we have not always followed the 'letter' , it is a remarkable document for helping humans to live together peacefully . Humans have rioted in this country - but not over a change of leadership by election to my knowledge. (I'm sure if I'm wrong, someone will correct my misinformation )

Quallacherokee
Quallacherokee's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2011
DM

" Humans have rioted in this country - but not over a change of leadership by election to my knowledge."

Ever heard of Abraham Lincoln?,, now THAT was a Riot
one could also argue that with the change of administration
(Hoover to FDR) in conjunction with BOTH admins failure to
recognize the House's Wright Patman Bill lead to the
Bonus Army "Riot' (the killing of two Veterans by DC police didn't help matters either)

"Riots" happen when a block of people figure they didn't get their way.
If Obama looses, there will be many who fall into this category,
Think Gore 2 this time with consequences

Lord knows I hope I'm wrong and would be please to be so, BUT being prepared is NEVER a bad plan

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Thanks Mrs. Willis

Many parents and teachers are sharing the same message with our youth. But it's not the 'youth' that I'm concerned about. (When you have a Sheriff in one of our more enlightened states that is arming his 'citizens' if Obama is re-elected.) I congratulate the late night shows - that is keeping a lot of this tension down by using humor . Like you say - we will go on - hopefully peacefully.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
If Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly can do it....

They sort of showed the other night(and have for years on each other's shows) how widely-divergent viewpoints don't have to mean "you're either for me or against me" and that at the end of the day, you're still Americans and friends who so happen to respectfully disagree, it can't be that hard, really.

You have two guys who make a living out of being sometimes loudmouths and controversial, but they can get together and debate their viepwoints, have some laughs, and donate a bunch of money to charity.

We overly-complicate things a lot of times and let political figures attempt to segregate us because those political leaders have a vested interest in the people being divided. If the people were to become too united or too in agreement with some basic concepts, it wouldn't be pretty for those politicians whatsoever.