To say “you can do what you want” or “you can be what you want” is a lie; a lie that resulted in Trump and Hillary. On the one side, an uprising, a backlash, a revolt, a movement. On the other side, elitist, imperialist, condescending thoughts, words and actions.

Put this way, an uprising should have been expected. Except that not one of the national politicians (in either party) from Reagan forward recognized their rhetoric for what it was; until Trump. And perhaps that gives Trump too much credit. But regardless, he was somehow able to take advantage of this political blind spot by (instead of championing opportunity and hard work as all the others have done) focusing on winners and losers. It struck a chord.

As an individual Donald Trump does not represent, argue nor does he appeal to facts or reason; Donald Trump represents, argues and appeals to emotion and dissatisfaction. And he finds this anger and discontent very close to the surface in those constituents pissed off at Hillary Clinton for putting them in her “Basket of Deplorables.”

As an individual Hillary Clinton very much represents elitist, imperialist, condescending thoughts, words and actions. What I heard in her presidential campaign, directed at more than fifty percent of us, is “You have failed! Your hard work doesn’t matter! But if you vote for me, I’ll throw you a bone.”

So what? Why am I going on about Hillary and Donald? They are part of history now; right? Maybe. Maybe not. But what they represent, (as shown by the more than 74 million Trump votes in 2020), is very much alive and well and politicians are lining up to take advantage of this division.

Perhaps more insidious than Donald Trump appealing to emotion is his parallel appeal to an emotionless old guard working to maintain (and perpetuate) status quo. By inciting emotions, and continuously stirring the pot, fact and reason (and thereby progress or even much change) are stunted and/or nonexistent. This playbook will be copied. Trump was merely right place, right time. There will be others. There are others; jockeying for position.

Though I despise the pretentious hubris of center-left politics and I very much understand the anger and discontent of the working poor vocally represented in the center-right and right, I voted for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. I chose the possibility of reason, the possibility of bridging wealth and power gaps, the possibility of baby steps, over the division of emotion.

But I know the emotion is still there. I feel it in me; and all around me. And those center-left politicians who ignore it, who believe that with the election of Joe Biden we have put that Trump Monster to bed, do so at their own peril; and even more so at mine.

Forty-some years ago, when we first began hearing from our elected leadership that “you can do what you want” and “you can be what you want” I believe it was spoken as a hope; as a possibility. From there it evolved into a fact, transformed into a lie, became a damn lie, then mutated into Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump (or his handlers) came along and saw the hope that was fact that was lie and worked the same magic (on a shorter timeline) with anger and dissatisfaction to create a platform of lies to hinder progress and (even worse) to circumvent reason. The center-left platform is based on a lie that the center-left politicians believe is a fact, and (accepting the lie that “you can be what you want”), are able to reason from there. The center-right-right and right politicians simply lie, (which in a sense is more honest), and don’t even bother with reason, (which is again more honest).

And this is why we are pissed at Hillary; she is oblivious. With the republicans, we at least know that at least some of them know we’re being played and we know we’re being played. It’s an understanding that appears mutually beneficial. But many of today’s democrats actually believe the crockaganda they are feeding us.

So, if it is not the democrats and if it is not the republicans, then what is the answer?

According to American economist Frank Knight, in a paper published in 1923,

“We cannot accept want-satisfaction as a final criterion of value because we do not in fact regard our wants as final; instead of resting in the view that there is no disputing about tastes, we dispute about them more than anything else; our most difficult problem in valuation is the evaluation of our wants themselves and our most troublesome want is the desire for wants of the "right" kind.”

So what are wants of the ‘right’ kind?

Perhaps the answer will be found in ethical leadership who will recognize the disconnect between 1) a capitalistic generation of superficial wants and the resulting superficial valuation of tastes, merit and morality, and 2) the civic / social and moral generation of wants and desires that will restore dignity, educate, and encourage thoughtful effort, collaboration, compassion and long term survival.

Perhaps it is the market value engine that is the problem. Perhaps if we replace that market value engine with one of civic / social and moral value, our output will become cleaner, more productive and more efficient, generating wants of the ‘right’ kind.

But in this moment, we have the democrats, and we have the republicans.