Election brought hope, despair, more of the same

How the election and Donald Trump’s victory looks to opinion writers from The New York Times: How Hillary handles pain

Women, as Hillary Clinton showed Wednesday morning, know how to absorb pain. And Clinton has had plenty of practice about how to stand before the cameras after public humiliation.

Clearly, she needed time to compose herself. She made no appearances overnight, instead calling Donald Trump to concede. But when Clinton strode onstage in purple and gray, Bill Clinton behind her in a purple tie, her voice did not waver.

Women seldom have the luxury of giving in to pain. Many have children or grandchildren or aging parents to tend, whether they themselves are sick or in emotional turmoil.

So Clinton faced her despondent campaign staff and her despondent half of the country and tried to rally them. She spoke most directly to young people, and to women and girls. She had hoped to stand before them as a symbol of all that women could achieve. Now she had to demonstrate once again what women can endure.

“I’ve had successes and setbacks, sometimes really painful ones,” she told them.

It was hard not to recall her standing beside Bill Clinton after the whole world knew graphic and humiliating details about the affairs he had denied having.

“To all the women and especially the young women who put their faith in me, I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion,” she said, and here she had to clear her throat. “I know we still have not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but someday somebody will, and hopefully sooner than we might think right now.”

It’s difficult to know right now all that stood in the way of shattering that ceiling. Was it a woman, or this woman? Was it Clinton as a symbol of the Washington establishment, as a consummate insider in a time of profound distrust of the elite?

We do know that voters disproportionately punish women who are seen as dishonest. We do know that it’s hard for strong, assertive and ambitious women to be seen as likable and competent at the same time.

Political scientists and cultural commentators will long debate what happened in this election, to this woman and to many women. The question is whether the image of Clinton, composed and gracious in defeat, persevering through pain, will inspire women to try again.

— Susan Chira, senior correspondent and editor on gender issues for The New York Times

Trump, the traders and you

Financial markets regained their footing Wednesday, as investors and traders apparently concluded that a Donald Trump presidency might not be so bad after all. Instead of focusing on how unprepared Trump is to be president, several traders quoted in the media talked about how deregulation from ending Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial reforms — two Republican goals — could lift stock prices for health care companies and banks. They took special solace in Trump’s promise to boost government spending on infrastructure and in the measured tones of his acceptance speech.

Unfortunately, there is no escaping the overarching conclusion that Trump’s campaign promises, if carried out, would harm the economy. His proposed rollback of Dodd-Frank reforms would invite renewed recklessness. His opposition to Obamacare would renew and intensify households’ financial insecurity. His proposed tax cuts for the rich would exacerbate income inequality, while either blowing a hole in the deficit or requiring deep budget cuts. His stance on trade would impair international commerce and cooperation. His proposed deportation of immigrants would unleash a legal and humanitarian crisis.

Even his popular call for more infrastructure spending is flawed. In and of itself, Trump’s pledge to borrow vast sums to spend on infrastructure would be a sensible move at this time of low interest rates. But vastly increased federal indebtedness in addition to his other harmful economic policies would be piling risk on top of risk.

Risk-taking that crosses the line into recklessness can be immensely profitable in the short run, which is what many traders care most about. But it is no way to run an economy on which everyone else depends for longterm prosperity. — Teresa Tritch, member of the Times editorial board

Supreme Court hardball

Now it looks like a warning shot. When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, Donald Trump was among the first to call for stonewalling President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the seat.

“It’s called delay, delay, delay,” he said at the opening of the Republican presidential debate Feb. 13. Sen. Harry Reid, the minority leader, countered that it would be “unprecedented in recent history” for the Supreme Court to go a year without a full complement of justices. But other Republicans, chief among them Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, agreed with Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz: Scalia’s seat should remain vacant until after the election.

Undeterred (what else was he supposed to be?), Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a seasoned judge praised in the past by Republicans such as Sen. Orrin Hatch. A debate ensued over historical facts, which seems quaintly polite in retrospect. Since 1900, had the Senate ever refused to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year as a result of the impending election? The answer was no (even if Cruz tried to argue, against the facts, that Justice Anthony Kennedy wasn’t confirmed in the election year of 1988). The Republicans’ refusal to grant Garland a hearing or schedule a vote was in fact unprecedented. It was a new kind of hardball. And it succeeded. For a blip in August, Republicans took a hit in the polls for obstructing the Garland nomination. But the moment passed, blown away in the chaos and battle of the presidential election. Garland slipped from view. The parties adapted to a new reality in which both expected either his post-election, pre-inauguration confirmation, or a new nominee chosen by the next president. When they assumed Hillary Clinton would win, Republicans including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Richard Burr of North Carolina talked about blocking Democratic Supreme Court picks indefinitely. Both were re-elected Tuesday and will return to a Senate still controlled by the Republicans.

It’s hard to see how any Republican paid a price for radically altering the norms for Supreme Court appointments. Trump helped point the way, and the voters rewarded him and those who followed.

Choosing a justice in Scalia’s mold, as he has promised, will allow Trump to prove himself to the social conservatives for whom the court, and Roe v. Wade, are the defining issues. Under the current rules, Democrats could filibuster his choice, but if that happens, how long will those rules last? Trump’s election has already run over far stronger traditions and norms.

Next comes the question of how many additional Supreme Court appointments will come his way. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. Anthony Kennedy is 80. Stephen Breyer is 78. In Supreme Court terms, four years is a long time.

— Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine and a fellow at Yale Law School

Coming of age in Trump’s America

I spent the days leading up to the election in Pennsylvania talking to some young voters — 18, 19, 20 years old. They wore flowered Doc Martens, fake fur coats, earbuds dangling from one ear. Overwhelmingly, they were open and polite. They were smart. They were angry at a political system they felt ignored them, but they hoped for better days ahead.

In January, Donald Trump will be their next president.

Many of these young people supported Trump. Many did so reluctantly. One young Trump supporter told me that no one knows exactly what Trump will do in office. Another described hesitating while filling out his absentee ballot, wondering if he could vote for a man who had made abhorrent comments about women. But some voted for Trump enthusiastically.

Those who supported Hillary Clinton were disgusted by Trump and what he stands for. Today, they’re dealing with a new reality they didn’t expect.

I’m thinking of Bria Blackshear, a 20-year-old Temple University student who had waited more than an hour at her polling place in north Philadelphia. “Donald Trump doesn’t represent the ideals I would want for this country,” she said.

I’m thinking of Brooke Renner, 18, also a Temple student, who was waiting in line for a second time. She’d given up earlier but was back and willing to wait as long as it took to cast her vote for Clinton. Otherwise, she said, “I’d feel personally responsible if Donald Trump wins.”

I’m thinking of Sierra Taylor, a 19-year-old student at the Community College of Philadelphia, who said, “Black people feel like our votes don’t matter.” I’m thinking of her friend Naiya Johnson, 22, who, when asked about her hopes for the next four years, said, “I hope we make it.”

I’m also thinking of the young people I saw debating the issues that matter to them. Of the table full of young men at Bucks County Community College arguing about Trump when one, the quietest, spoke up to say, “Trump has no respect for women.” Of the young man, who, as his friend criticized Clinton’s record as secretary of state, interjected that Trump is racist, sexist and xenophobic. They’d had the argument once before, they said. I hope they keep talking. I think they will.

It’s a frightening time to grow up. But these young voters are clear-eyed about the shortcomings of government and optimistic enough to imagine a better world. They can make friends with people of different viewpoints, and, when it matters, they can challenge their friends to think in a new way. — Anna North, member of the Times editorial board