Finding hope after a disappointing election
Joyful growth in challenging times.
Hi friend,
Wow, last week was a lot, right? Even if you aren’t living in the US, you might have felt quite impacted by the election results. (I know my friends in Germany are paying attention…)
It took me a while to get back to writing. In my heart of hearts, I’m an optimist, and my aim is to make my readers feel better. I mean, I didn’t call this publication “joyful growth” for nothin’.
Well, let’s just say I didn’t feel particularly joyful last week. (Even before Tuesday. Our little one was sick, so my husband and I got up at 3am on Monday and spent the rest of the night cleaning up the next generation’s vomit. Which, come to think about it, was a pretty good indicator for how the rest of the week would go.)
Given that last week felt like a gut punch, is it time to abandon this idea of joyful growth? No, I don’t think so!
It’s time to double down.
If something is real, it can take the pressure
As Terrence McKenna put it:
“if it's real, it can take the pressure.”
(Cue obligatory quote about how diamonds are just stones that came under pressure. On second thought, I’m not in the mood for platitudes, so scrap this.)
If our dream of a better world is real, it can survive another Trump presidency.
I mean, look at all the pressure abolitionists and suffragists faced. And still, they prevailed. Their dream was real.
Look at all the shit people have been through throughout history. Presumably, bad rulership was the norm, not the exception, for those who came before us.
I mean, Rome had Five Good Emperors. It’s kinda telling that we have a special name for them, isn’t it? (It also begets the question: What about their other ~ 79 rulers?)
And at least Trump isn’t Caligula, right? (Or Vlad the Impaler. It’s not like the Romans had a monopoly on terrible people in power.)
“But what if Trump wrecks the constitution?”
“If it’s real, it can take the pressure” also applies to legal documents, such as the US Constitution.
The Weimar Constitution caved under pressure, but everyone will tell you that it was a terrible constitution.
*clears throat*
Actually, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, historian William L. Shirer described the Weimar Constitution as
"on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices, which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy."
Okay, fine, maybe terrible was the wrong word!
But the Weimar Constitution had its weaknesses, and those weaknesses became apparent shortly after its establishment in 1919.
Given that the US Constitution is over 200 years old (and even made it through a Civil War!), there’s a good chance that it will be strong enough to withstand the pressure.
That said, the end of a country’s constitution doesn’t have to be the end of the world, or even the end of the country and its people. Many countries have gotten new constitutions over the years.
When you look at the world, the US Constitution is actually an outlier when it comes to longevity.
Take, for instance, Europe’s first modern codified constitution (and the second in the World)—The Constitution of Poland. Ratified in 1791, it was in force for …
(go on, take a guess…)
… less than 19 months.
Poland’s current constitution was ratified in 1997 (making the German post-war constitution look positively ancient in comparison).
And what I recall from my Spanish constitutional law class (when I spent a year chilling, I mean, studying in Spain), is that for a while, they would go from a progressive to a regressive constitution, like a legal ping pong match.
The world’s most boring ping pong match, that is. (Well, for the 21st century law student. I assume it was plenty exciting for the people who had to live through it.)
Here’s an excerpt of what I had to sit through when taking that class (in a language I was only semi-fluent in, to boot):
“The Spanish Constitution of 1812 was the first constitution in Spain to establish a division of powers, laying the groundwork for a constitutional monarchy. It was notable for its liberal principles, including the abolition of feudalism, the establishment of civil rights, and the introduction of universal male suffrage.
It got repealed in 1814, and Spain went back to an absolute monarchy.
It was in force again from 1820-1823. Then Spain went back to an absolute monarchy (again…).
Then…”
(“Heyyy, where have you all gone?”)
Anyway, my point is that the US has a strong constitution (if its longevity is any indication). And that other countries have gotten new constitutions, and often come out stronger on the other side.
“But I wish we would make more progress!”
I hear you. I also wish the changes we want to see would happen more quickly.
At the same time, it’s helps to put things in perspective.
Let’s imagine you time-traveled back and told an early abolitionist or suffragist that in your timeline, a Black woman who used to be a prosecutor ran against a rich white guy and got almost as many votes as him (despite having a lot less time to campaign).
They would probably think you are joking.
Here’s how the conversation might go:
Them: “What, where you are from, Black people and women can become lawyers?” (In 1869, Arabella Mansfield became the first female lawyer in the United States.)
You: “Yes, of course.”
Them (with a growing smile on their face): “And they are allowed to vote?!?”
You: “Yes, of course.”
Them (looking like they are about to faint from excitement): “And they can become President?!?”
You: “Yes, in fact, we did have a Black President. And a woman got the popular vote, but didn’t win the electoral college, so we haven’t yet had a female president. However, we currently have a Black female Vice President. And the current Second Lady is actually a white dude—the Second Gentleman.”
Them (chuckles): “Second Gentleman, hah, I like it! Wait, what, so interracial marriage is legal?”
You: “Yes, of course.”
Them (hugging you so tight you almost suffocate): “IF ALL THAT IS TRUE, WHY ARE YOU LOOKING SO GLOOMY? DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG WE FOUGHT FOR THIS? THIS IS AMAZING NEWS!!!!”
You: “But the wrong person won. Again.”
Them: “SORRY, GOTTA GO. I HAVE TO PLAN A HUGE CELEBRATION IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HOW FAR WE HAVE COME. LATER!”
Here’s the thing: with almost everything, we can look at it through a positive or a negative lens.
If you are like me, you might have spent the last week looking at events through a negative lens. And that’s appropriate. It’s appropriate to grieve and feel anger.
However, it’s not appropriate to permanently adopt a perspective of doom and gloom.
To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”
Last week was a finite disappointment.
The more beautiful world we yearn for? That’s infinite hope.
And for all its flaws, the world we live in now would seem like paradise to our ancestors.
Warmly,
Louise
P.S.: I’m now on Bluesky, if you would like to connect!
P.P.S.: Can you do me a favor? If you know people that could benefit from this article, would you mind sharing it with them?
This election has been especially hard for animal advocates—almost every ballot measure for improving the lives of animals failed. If you have a friend who is an animal advocate or vegan, they might feel pretty down right now. Could you share my article about positive animal advocacy news with them?
Related articles
If you feel better after reading this and want more uplifting articles (hey, it is better than checking the news, right?), I’ve got you covered!
This one talks about my 5+-year experiment with reducing my news consumption:
This one features the moving words of a 19th century abolitionist:
This one features Carla, the Caterpillar (she’s not having a great time at the moment…):
This one talks about the stress test we are all going through:
Playlist:
Dropkick Murphys — We Shall Overcome
The Stranglers — Something Better Change
… and pretty much every punk rock song ever!
Amazing Louise, your words were a much-needed reminder that history is full of resilience, even in the face of setbacks. The way you contextualized last week’s events within the broader sweep of history—highlighting abolitionists, suffragists, and even the enduring strength of the U.S. Constitution—was both grounding and uplifting.
The conversation with the hypothetical suffragist was brilliant. It’s easy to lose sight of the monumental progress humanity has made when we’re caught in the immediacy of disappointment. That perspective shift, from finite disappointment to infinite hope, was exactly what I needed to hear.
Your exploration of how constitutions and societies endure or adapt over time was fascinating. The anecdote about Spain’s constitutional ping-pong was particularly striking. It’s a reminder that resilience isn’t just about standing firm but also about evolving.
I also appreciated your acknowledgment of the grief and frustration we feel in moments like these. As much as I strive to focus on hope, it’s validating to know that part of the journey is allowing space for those emotions before moving forward.
Thank you for your optimism and for reminding us that the path to progress has always been uneven but unwavering. I’ll be keeping “infinite hope” as my mantra in the days ahead.
Oops sorry Louise, got you last name spelled wrong.