FINDING HOPE IN THE AFTERMATH

 

I was baffled by the contrasting messages coming out of Syria, where rebel fighters overthrew Bashar al-Assad after decades of despotic rule, and from progressive Democrats following the recent election of Donald Trump.

In Syria, the CBS news show, “60 Minutes,” interviewed exiled factory owners returning to their bombed-out facilities, eager to rebuild. Families in towns destroyed by Assad, living in piles of rubble, only wanted to talk about what freedom felt like after fifty years of living in fear. Parents who finally learned the fate of their sons, killed in the Assad prison system, were relieved to have closure and talked about the future of their country. Hope appears to dominate the social fabric of Syria.

The opposite mindset was expressed by many Democrats following the election.  Author Ben Tarnoff reflected the thoughts of many when he wrote for The New York Review, “Trump’s style is simple, a gleeful hostility toward the institutions that have traditionally organized American life. He positions himself not merely as an outsider but as a destroyer: someone who delights in the demolition of norms and normalcy.”

Shortly after the election, an editorial in the U.S. edition of the Guardian had this to say, “Today is a day of despair, and it would be futile to tell those who fear and grieve for what is to come in America that they will be OK. It would also be dishonest: many of us, in truth, will not be OK.”

How is it possible that such widespread hope can exist among Syrians who continue to live at a subsistence level in an unstable environment? Conversely, what can explain the feelings of impending doom of so many Americans, who enjoy a high standard of living, surrounded by national exceptionalism?

To get some answers, I sought advice from my neighbor, a wise, retired psychology professor. He explained that in Syria, expectations were so low for so long that any positive news created an outpouring of hope for improved conditions. On the other hand, before the election, the expectations for being rid of Trump and sending him to prison were high among progressives. The Trump victory, with many voters who previously voted Democratic now supporting him, sent loyal Democrats into a deep funk.

In America, there was also the psychological tendency for people to overemphasize the negative.  “Negativity bias” ensures that unpleasant results have a greater impact and last longer on one’s psychological state than neutral or positive ones. This helps explain the willingness of Trump supporters to back the “stop the steal” movement since the 2020 election even though there was no evidence of voting improprieties. Similarly, upset progressives now warn of the “end of democracy” even before Trump takes office. In addition, most news coverage is predominantly negative and reinforces this trend.

I decided to stand back from recent occurrences in Syria and America to gain some perspective on where events are heading. In Syria, despite the recent abundance of hope, the political and economic prospects for the country are not encouraging.  As the statues of Assad were being pulled down, a scramble among sectarian rivals was on to see who would replace him.

A number of factors must come together to ensure that the situation in Syria improves. First, there must be an open, comprehensive dialogue involving all social, ethnic, and religious groups leading toward free and democratic elections. Second, foreign powers must agree to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity. Third, the militia that took down Assad must agree to protect minorities, women’s rights, and to prevent acts of vengeance. Fourth, governments and humanitarian groups must provide short-term food relief and longer-term reconstruction aid. Fifth, the chemical weapons manufactured by the Assad regime must be secured and destroyed. Lastly, a pathway must be established for the safe return of refugees.

A recent article in Foreign Affairs Magazine concludes that “The Syrian people face monumental challenges. Piecemeal solutions will not suffice, but realistic goals must be set.” Much must go right in the most dangerous area of the world not known for its success in nation building.

Turning to the pessimism following our election, I was encouraged by the recent and final column of Paul Krugman, an economist and writer for the New York Times. In the article, “Finding Hope in an Age of Resentment.” Krugman points out that when he started writing his column twenty-five years ago, most Americans were optimistic and “took peace and prosperity for granted.” He believes that “optimism has been replaced by anger and resentment” and that “the satisfaction with the direction of the country has disappeared.” This is because “governments have lost the public’s trust.”

Krugman explains there is a way out of the grim place we are in. He argues, “Resentment can put bad people in power but can’t keep them there. The public will realize that politicians railing against elites actually are elites and start to hold them accountable.”

Krugan concludes, “We will eventually find our way back to a better place.” This will happen when, “The voting public begins to listen to people who don’t try to argue from authority, don’t make false promises, but do try to tell the truth as best they can.”

Despite the contrasting public moods, my guess is that after the next national election cycle, democratic institutions in America will be far healthier than in Syria.