Unity Ball Keynote

For those of you who missed The Unity Ball on January 20th, here is the text of Consul General Emilio Rabasa’s keynote speech – marking the 85th anniversary of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt´s Good Neighbor Policy

Distinguished guests!

Ladies and gentlemen!

My first recognition goes to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Foundation, its President & Executive, Michael Weishan and its Director, Jed Willard, for not only having organized this significant event, but also launching a whole year program based on the celebration of the 85th anniversary of the “The Good Neigbour Policy” which include different expressions of the Mexican-USA relations.

I also want to acknowledge and thank Dean Katie O’Dair of the Office of Students Life; Harvard Public Affairs and Communications; The David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies; the Latin Initiative “Camino Arts”; Radio Jarocho and Ronstadt Generations y Los Tucsonenses for their support and participation to make all this possible. Special thanks to Adams House of Harvard University for hosting us tonight, and to Acitrón for their catering, hope you like this sample of Mexican food.

Thank you guests, staff and students for being here tonight.

For the Mexican Consulate it is an honor to participate at this “Unity Ball” to remember and celebrate the “85th anniversary of the Good Neighbor Policy“, which generated substantial changes in the democratic life and fundamental values in Latin America and in Mexico.

Today, it is specifically relevant to remind ourselves and everyone what the good neighbor policy was about. For that purpose, I would like to quote former President Roosevelt at his inaugural speech in 1933: “In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of agreements in and with a world of neighbors. We now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we cannot merely take, but must give as well.”

Roosevelt was undoubtedly a visionary: 84 years after those words México and the United States have become fully interdependent in a diversity of activities like trade, investment, academia, technology, innovation, culture, particularly cinema, tourism, agriculture, industry, services and national security.

The good neighbor policy enforced the ties between USA and Mexico in such a way that transformed our relationship from distant neighbors to great partners and friends after NAFTA in the 1990s. From war in the XIXth and beginning of the XXth Century, to an alliance of two neighbor-friends who fight together against common foes such as crime and drug dealers; partners who invest and trade among each other, in a dimension seldom found between other neighbor countries; and creative cosponsors of art, sports and entertainment.

Integration has been so intense between our two countries that particularly now, it is essential for Mexico to conduct a proactive and creative foreign policy that includes political dialogue, constructive negotiation, the protection of Mexicans abroad, cooperation for more economic development and the defense of Mexico’s interests, here and in the world. We are now facing a new era in the relationship with the United States of America.

As such, a good neighbor policy has to consider the wider context of our present and future relation.

Thirty five million Mexican-American leave in this great country, out of which the third part were born in Mexico. These immigrants through hard work and effort, produce $240 billion each year, pay $90 billion in taxes and use only $5 billion in public services. Mexican-Americans generate 8% of the US GDP. Mexican migrants spend 86% of their earnings inside the United States; they only send 14% as remittances.

It is important to mention that those millions of Mexicans who have emigrated to look for work, are productive and good people, who represent Mexico´s best. Their contributions include professionals, scientists, innovators, artists, creators, academics, small and large entrepreneurs who invest in the United States and generate many jobs. Also, women and men who work tirelessly every day in agriculture, trade and services; Mexicans who contribute not only to their families on both sides of the border, but also share their values and efforts to the greatness of the United States and Mexico.

I consider this isn’t a zero sum game, but a win- win relation. Let me be clear that undocumented immigrants are not taking away a slice of anybody else’s pie, they’re making the entire pie bigger.

Additionally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that trade inside NAFTA sustains 14 million American jobs, 6 million exclusively by Mexico and eight million with Canada. Trade US/Mexico is more than $1.3 billion dollars per day, almost 1 million dollars per minute. 40% of the parts that make up Mexican exports are made in the US, in other words, 40 cents of every dollar spent on Mexican goods support US jobs.

However such strong interchange has not been limited to trade and business. Some concrete examples show the diversity and richness of our common endeavors: The Academy of Arts and Sciences of Hollywood awarded the last 3 Oscars for best movie directors to two Mexicans: One for Alfonso Cuarón (Gravity) and two for Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman and The Revenant). In sports, ask the Dodgers about their Mexican pitcher Fernando Valenzuela’s performance. In Science, NASA awarded the Exceptional Achievement Medal in 1989 for his work in the USA, and in 1995 the Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to Dr. Mario Molina, a Mexican scientist, for his research achievements at the University of California. There is an endless list that comprises also other activities such as gastronomy, arts, music, dance and certainly the business world. Our Marine and Armed Forces have engaged in humanitarian aid to the USA, in case of natural disasters such as it was when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005.

At present, Mexico, a 1.2 trillion dollar economy, is one of the world´s more open economies in the world, with a free trade network along 46 countries. We are the 13th exporter world wide, and by year 2050 project to be the 8th world economy.

In agricultural goods 1,596 million dollars are worth of exports in the food industry to more than 150 destinations

In education the percentage of graduate students in engineering and manufacture is higher than in Germany, Brazil, Spain, USA and UK.

Mexico is the 9th exporter of medical appliances, and an elite country of medical tourism who attends one million foreign patients each year.

Culturally Mexico is the 6th country with more sites declared Patrimony of Humanity, 1st one in Latin America, By the way, for this year UNESCO declared the Mexican Constitution that celebrates its centennial, a “memory document for humanity”. The Mexican capital has been recognized as the American Capital of Culture for 2017. Since 2015 we returned to the 10th touristic destination world wide, with more than 30 million visitors each year.

Last but not least, we proudly host more than one million Americans leaving throughout Mexico.

In 2017 Mexico will continue promoting the best causes of humanity, including respect for human rights, combat climate change, create a new global governance on migration and refugees and a new instrument for the prohibition of nuclear weapons, among our key foreign relations goals.

Finally, I would like to recall two examples drawn form our bilateral relation´s history that clearly show, how a good neighbor policy between the USA and Mexico, has worked in solving border issues by dialogue and negotiation:

Last century a shift in the regular curse of Río Grande that served as frontier between the two neighbor countries, created a conflict over about 600 acres (2,4km2) between El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, known as the Chamizal conflict. After intense dialogue and negotiations during the administrations of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson of USA, and López Mateos-Díaz Ordaz from México, a solution was reached with a construction of a channel to redirect its waters, in which both countries shared the cost, along with the cost of three new bridges and the creation of the Chamizal National Memorial as a museum, to increase visitors awareness of cooperation, diplomacy and cultural values as a basic means to conflict resolution.
Another case was the dispute over de salinity of the Rio Colorado waters which originated in the USA side and deeply affected agriculture on the Mexican side, mainly in the northern state of Baja California. In 1972, the United States and Mexico found a “permanent and definitive solution” to the salinity problem. The US in addition to agreeing to provide Mexico with the quantity and quality of water required by its farmers, built a desalinization plant in Arizona to process the water from the Wellton-Mohawk diversion. This solution was reached during the Nixon-Echeverría administrations, and I know the case very well, because my father being the Foreign Secretary of Mexico talked and negotiated the solution with Henry Kissinger, the then American Secretary of State.

Those examples are true inspirations on how to solve frontier issues among our two countries through dialogue conducted with respect, and negotiation shaped with creativity.

It is true that nowadays we need a more secure border, but, for the benefit of both countries, not only of one, since the issue is not only for the control of undocumented migration and drugs into the US, but also to stop the weapons and money trafficking from the US to drug cartels and organized crime in Mexico, which is literally killing my people. A two ways problem, requires a two ways solution, between two good willing neighbors.

The friendship between our countries has been mutually beneficial and such harmony deserves to be preserved. Let’s continue on building the bridges of friendship and goodness through negotiation, cooperation and mutual respect.

A good neighbor policy must be conductive to solving problems, particularly border issues, through dialogue and negotiation on equal footage, not by confrontation, less so by subordination.

A good neighbor policy means finding ways to leave, not only in peace, but even more so, in harmony, making the neighbors border a truly bridge of richness and security and not a wall of isolation.

Thank you all and have a great night!

CHRISTMAS, 1941

Roosevelt addresses the crowd at the Christmas tree lighting ceremony from the White House South Portico on December 24, 1941. Churchill can be seen on the right. (FDR Presidential Library)

It was Christmastime when Prime Minister Winston Churchill arrived in Washington on December 22, 1941—two weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor and eleven days after Hitler audaciously declared war on the United States.

For eighteen months Churchill had wooed Roosevelt, cajoling, charming, and even begging him to bring the United States into the war against Germany. Now Churchill’s prayers were answered:  the United States would certainly enter the war. On learning of the attack, Churchill later wrote, “Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the thankful and the saved.”

Churchill had come to Washington to make sure that earlier agreements of an Anglo-American alliance against Germany (should America enter the war) remained firm in the face of the Pearl Harbor attack. Understandably, the American people had an overwhelming desire to strike back at the Japanese. Churchill needed to turn them from thoughts of revenge to Britain’s view of the realities of the Axis threat. His task was made more difficult by Japan’s stunning victories in the weeks following Pearl Harbor. In the Philippines American troops were trapped on the southern tip of the Bataan Peninsula and the Rock of Corregidor. Within a matter of days, Guam, Wake, and Hong Kong had fallen. American territories were being invaded and American lives lost. Americans wanted to throw everything they had against the Japanese.

Yet there was Britain’s precarious position to consider: if the Soviets fell, Hitler would throw his full strength into the temporarily delayed invasion of the United Kingdom. If Britain fell, what would be next for the United States? Germany was the more powerful of the foes. In an Anglo-American alliance, Churchill’s longstanding policy was the defeat of “Germany First.” He needed to make sure that the great power of the American war machine was leveled first against Hitler and second against the Japanese. Fortunately, Roosevelt agreed with him. But his position was not without dissent from some military advisors—and critics in the press and public.

Whatever his motives, Churchill’s presence was a tonic to the shattered Americans. On December 23 he joined FDR in a news conference in the Oval Office. More than two hundred journalists crowded into the room, some using edges of the president’s desk to take notes. “Wearing polka dot bow tie, a short black coat, and striped trousers,” Doris Kearns Goodwin tells us, Churchill

stared imperturbably into space, his long cigar between his compressed lips as Roosevelt spoke. When the time came for the prime minister to speak, reporters in the back called out that they could not see him. Asked to stand, Churchill not only complied, but scrambled atop his chair. “There was a wild burst of applause and then cheering,” The New York Times reported, . . . “as the visitor stood there before them, . . . with confidence and determination written on the countenance so familiar to the world.” (p. 303)

Bernard Baruch was among those invited to the White House that Christmas season. He “believed that Churchill’s visit would ‘galvanize’ American public opinion,” according to Eleanor Roosevelt biographer Blanche Wiesen Cook.

With the Pacific fleet in ruins, Wake Island fallen, Singapore besieged, and the Philippines invaded, Baruch considered Churchill “the best Christmas present” to restore heart and hope to the Allied world. “The pink-cheeked warrior in the air raid suit” was the leading symbol of resistance to the Blitz: “Do your worst, we can stand it,” his presence seemed to say. “We won’t crack up.” (Cook, pp. 409–410).

Wartime blackout regulations and tight security precautions were already in place in Washington; nevertheless, Roosevelt insisted on lighting the national Christmas tree. Various reports describe the event. “Our strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the dignity and brotherhood of man which Christmas Day signifies,” he declared. Churchill joined Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt on the balcony of the White House before a crowd of 20,000 and in a national radio broadcast that reached millions. “Let the children have their night of fun and laughter,” Churchill said, and then:

Let the gifts of Father Christmas delight their play. Let us grown-ups share to the full in their unstinted pleasures before we turn again to the stern task and formidable years that lie before us, resolved that, by our sacrifice and daring, these same children shall not be robbed of their inheritance or denied their right to live in a free and decent world.

On December 26 Churchill addressed a Joint Session of Congress, declaring himself half-American. “By the way, I cannot help reflecting that if my father had been American and my mother British instead of the other way around, I might have got here on my own.” Much to Eleanor Roosevelt’s distress (who had a more internationalist vision), he stressed the unity and implied superiority of the English-speaking world, speaking of the “outrages they have committed upon us at Pearl Harbor, in the Pacific Islands, in the Philippines, in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.”

Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt give a joint press conference in the Oval Office of the White House, December 23, 1941. (FDR Presidential Library)

The White House hosted a steady stream of diplomatic and military dignitaries during Churchill’s two-week visit. Meetings were held every day and long into the night—including Christmas day when a War Council was held from 5:30 to 6:45 pm. The war planners set themselves to the business at hand: North Africa, the Pacific and Southeast Asia, military strategy, war production, tonnage, and the Far East were among the subjects of talks. Ambassador Maxim Litvinov from the USSR, Prime Minister Mackenzie King of Canada, and the chiefs of the American Republics of South America and the Missions of the Allied Power and Refugee Governments came and went.

Since Churchill’s arrival he and FDR had been working on a Joint Declaration of Unity and Purpose for the Allies. As they laid the groundwork for war, they also began to frame the peace. It was FDR who suggested to Churchill on the morning of December 29th the name that would signify both war power and the promise of peace: the United Nations.

On New Year’s Day Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Maxim Litvinov of the USSR, and T. V. Soong of China signed the Declaration of the United Nations. An exultant Churchill declared, “Four fifths of the human race” has resolved Hitler’s end.

The next day twenty-two additional countries signed: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, Union of South Africa, and Yugoslavia. Subsequently Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela signed.

Those countries that signed by March 1945 would become the founding members of the United Nations.

The Declaration read in part:

The Governments signatory hereto,

Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated August 14, 1941 known as the Atlantic Charter.

Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world,

Declare:

(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.

 

What then was this Atlantic Charter that underpinned the entire agreement?

It was nothing less than a declaration of goals for the postwar world, an instrument for peace forged in the exigencies of war: “after the final destruction of Nazi tyranny, [it envisioned] . . . a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.”

To ensure that world, Roosevelt and Churchill called for permanent disarmament and envisioned a “permanent system of general security.”

All of the nations of the world, for realistic as well spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea, or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten aggression outside of their frontiers, [the signatories] believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential.

Churchill had come to the Atlantic Conference seeking American entry into the war against Hitler to preserve the British Empire. The Atlantic Charter was Franklin Roosevelt’s vision, a reimagining of the lost promise of the League of Nations and Woodrow Wilson’s failed vision for an end to all war. Out of it grew the United Nations—an ambitious idea for a post-war world of peace, disarmament, decolonization, democratic self-determination, respect for human rights, and free trade.

This is the legacy of Christmas 1941—and a reminder of work we have yet to complete.

 

Sources:
Cook, Blanche Wiesen. Eleanor Roosevelt: The War Years and After, Volume 3, 1939–1962. New York: Viking, 2016.
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.

 

Pearl Harbor and the End of Isolationism

Seventy-five years ago this morning, the United States was firmly isolationist. Widely disillusioned by the aftermath of the “War to End All Wars,” the American public turned its attention inward after WWI, first preoccupied with the financial glitter and gains of the Roaring 20s, then plunged into social introspection and cross-examination by the Great Depression. In 1941, America was deeply divided as to whether to rescue Europe again, however dire the situation there. Only the huge shock of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941 —  “a date which will live in infamy” — jolted the nation from its isolationist stance.

 
Since that fateful day, the international landscape has been entirely reshaped, largely as a result of the hard-fought efforts by Roosevelt to create a new post-war world order: one that would link the world in an interconnected web of economic, political and social cooperation and prevent us from slipping back into the slumbers of isolationism. From FDR’s Fourth Inaugural Address:

 
“Today, in this year of war, 1945, we have learned lessons – at a fearful cost – and we shall profit by them. We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other Nations, far away… We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community. We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that, ‘The only way to have a friend is to be one.’”

 
And, in fact, the world we live in today is largely that of Roosevelt’s vision. But as of today, the 75th anniversary of the trigger for the North Atlantic Alliance, cracks have appeared and deepened in the shining façade. Public mistrust of trade agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — on both sides of the Atlantic — threaten to derail economic cooperation. Reluctance among some Americans to maintain NATO in light of sometimes lackadaisical European allies portends trouble for the military alliance, illiberal ideologies and anti-immigration populism are on the rise, and the related resurgence of isolationism in the United States menaces U.S. foreign relations.

 
Does America, and the West broadly, have the will to to maintain the post war order over the next 75 years? Or will something new, or old, replace it?

On Democracy and the Election

fdr-1st-inaugural-copy

Franklin Roosevelt famously considered General Douglas MacArthur the most dangerous man in America.  Huey Long was number two.   What would he think of Donald Trump?

That got me thinking about what advice he might give us today.  When Roosevelt wanted the American people to face a difficult challenge, he often asked them to look to the past to find strength in the endurance of our forebears and wisdom in the actions of past leaders.  So, in the wake of our recent election, I turned to Roosevelt himself for some strength and wisdom.

Where, then, are the parallels for today? We face an uncertain future with an unproven president-elect whose campaign has stigmatized great swaths of the American public.

First of all, let us remember FDR’s charge to be wary of the hazards of fear.

Second, let us remember a comment from Woodrow Wilson that Roosevelt often repeated when things looked grim for progressive government. “It is only once in a generation that a people can be lifted above material things. That is why conservative government is in the saddle two-thirds of the time” (as quoted in James MacGregor Burns, The Lion and the Fox, 1956, p. 54). Perhaps progressive government in our generation had its moment with the Obama presidency and the pendulum has swung back to the country’s natural center.

But Roosevelt also said in the aftermath of a conservative backlash in 1938, “You have read that as a result of the balloting last November, the liberal forces in the United States are on their way to the cemetery—yet I ask you to remember that liberal forces in the United States have often been killed and buried, with the inevitable result that in short order they have come to life again with more strength than they had before” (Address at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, December 5, 1938).

We are deeply worried today about our populace, which seems hopelessly divided into separate and antagonistic camps. Roosevelt had something to say about that too, and in the aftermath of this election it is a warning that bears serious attention. In 1940, with Hitler’s conquest of Europe complete but for the elimination of Great Britain, the United States was deeply divided—more divided, the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote, than he ever again experienced in his long life.

War hovered over all, and the argument between interventionists and isolationists grew each week more savage and despairing. There have been a number of fierce national quarrels in my lifetime—over communism in the later Forties, over McCarthyism in the Fifties, over Vietnam in the Sixties—but none so tore apart families and friendships as the great debate of 1940–41. Though historians have dealt ably with the policy issues, justice has not been done to the searing personal impact in those angry days
[A Life in the Twentieth Century, p. 241].

While the attack on Pearl Harbor put an end to most national discord a year later, Roosevelt warned in his his 1940 Annual Message to Congress that internal conflict—which pits one group against another—is an open door to totalitarianism:

Doctrines that set group against group, faith against faith, race against race, class against class, fanning the fires of hatred in men too despondent, too desperate to think for themselves, were used as rabble-rousing slogans on which dictators could ride to power. And once in power they could saddle their tyrannies on whole nations and on their weaker neighbors.

Roosevelt was warning Americans to unite in the face of an external threat, but he was also speaking to a nation that was tearing itself apart. His deeper message was to strengthen democracy by uniting behind its values, which in 1940 as in 2016 require us to work together to use the tools of our democracy to preserve it.

Our times are not as desperate as those of 1933 or 1940. We are a nation that enjoys many blessings. We have serious challenges and we must meet them, but now is not the time for fear and dissention. Now is the time to redouble our efforts to strengthen our democracy, for what FDR said in 1940 must be reconfirmed in 2016. President-elect Trump used the tools of a demagogue to gain the presidency, but we must not allow the country to descend into autocracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Hillary Clinton Lost, and What to Do About It Now

hc-copy

Hillary Clinton during her concession speech. Photo: Courtesy Reuters

As a boy growing up in Wisconsin, I was blessed with a wonderful grandfather, who, after my parents divorced, was more like a father to me. Grandpa had risen through the ranks to become a labor union president, and was eventually tapped by the Department of State to help resolve conflicts around the world before they became entry points to communism. Needless to say, Grandpa was a very effective negotiator, but more than that, he was a keen observer, and a listener. He taught me that to close a deal it was hugely important to understand and empathize with your opposition, and that the way to get what you wanted was to acknowledge what the other side needed, and to find the middle ground to make that happen. He taught me another hugely valuable lesson, too: When a deal goes south, the very first thing you do is ask: what did I do wrong? No blaming the other side. What did you do to make this fail?

Since the election, I have heard from many of my friends and colleagues, and being a rather Democratic group (with a big D) they are upset, to say the least, with Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency. And there is much to be upset about, if the hatred and bigotry and misogyny demonstrated during the campaign indeed transfer into the White House. But putting aside all that for a moment, I think we should follow my grandfather’s advice and ask “what did I (we) do wrong?” What did those who supported Hillary Clinton do wrong?

First off, there was an element of hubris on the Democratic side that was visible from the beginning if you looked for it. The fact is that Hillary Clinton — initially presented by the Party leadership as something akin to an uncrowned anointed —was in reality a badly damaged candidate who in a normal election against a normal Republican probably would have lost. But given the eventual 2016 Republican nominee, we simply presumed that no one in their right mind would vote for Donald Trump, and the very real problems of a Clinton candidacy could be smoothed over just like wrinkle lines with the right face cream.

Well guess what: this kind of wishful makeup make-believe was perfectly obvious to anyone who wasn’t wearing rose-colored Party-supplied glasses, and those who saw through the ruse resented this top-down condescending subterfuge, and they voted for Trump. The people who thought Hillary was inherently dishonest (which we chose to overlook) voted for Trump. The people who saw the Clintons as seeing themselves above the law (which we tried to explain away) voted for Trump.  And the millennials, who felt that Hillary’s message was 20 years out-of-date and didn’t address issues that they cared about, like poverty (barely mentioned) climate (never mentioned) and a stratified wealth system stacked against them (which Wall-Street Clinton was part of) didn’t vote for Trump, but didn’t vote for Hillary either.

I think it’s telling that Clinton never once came to my home state of Wisconsin. It’s something of an oddball place, with a conservative (and poor) northern portion and a more affluent southern section, dominated by Madison (a university town) and Milwaukee, a former industrial center that has recently seen considerable unemployment and racial unrest. What unites Wisconsinites is that they are some of the friendliest, most welcoming people in America. They are good people, honest people, who work hard for their families, care about their kids, do the best they can to get by. Yes, politically they are diverse, with widely ranging views on everything from gun control to women’s reproductive rights, but by and large, they are the kind of people you wouldn’t mind as your neighbors. In the primaries, Madison was, as you might expect, a Bernie Sanders town. Milwaukee, with its large minority populations, was a Clinton kind of place. But the rest of the state was more or less up for grabs, with people still uneasy from the Great Recession and worried what their financial futures would hold.

So given this unease, what was Hillary’s message for Wisconsin? (From afar, that is.) Distilled through the speeches, the debates, and the slogan-filled sound bytes, it was pretty much: “Any fool can see you’ll be better off with me than with him.” Trump however, came to Wisconsin, spoke directly to the crowds there, told them he felt their pain, and would help them “Make American Great Again.” As one small town mayor reported from a similar rally in a depressed area of Pennsylvania: “I don’t know if he can do what he says, but at least he knows we’re here.” Hillary, in contrast, spent much of the month of August in wealthy summer enclaves of the East Coast where a single picture of you with the candidate set you back 10K. (Cher however, was a bargain at 5.)

If there is one thing I learned from my grandfather all those years ago, it was this: if you want people to do something for you, say, elect you to office, don’t talk down to them, and don’t ignore what they have to say because you think you know better. The Clinton campaign obviously didn’t get that memo, and the “basket of deplorables” rose up and struck back. And it wasn’t just the Republicans, either. While registered Republicans largely held their nose and stayed with the Donald, in several of the swing states 40 percent of registered Democrats voted Trump for president.

So I have a recommendation (also via my grandfather) for all the people who feel hurt and demoralized today: get off your buns and start working right now for 2020. Find (or become) a candidate that listens to the “flyover zone” and is not merely bi-coastal. We need a presidential candidate who is HONEST with the American people and doesn’t spiel platitudes to get their votes. It’s clear from this past election that many Americans feel threatened, that their way of life is slipping away, and frankly, IT IS. Both Clinton and Trump promised to bring back jobs to the US, and even as they mouthed these words, they knew they were lies. These jobs didn’t go to people in Mexico or China: they went to Mexican and Chinese robotized factories, and the continuing trend towards automation of even white collar jobs over the next decade is going to cause massive social upheaval throughout America and the world. We need a candidate who knows and admits this, and has a plan better than “Trust me, it’s going to be sooooo wonderful.”  (Supply your own thumb-pinching hand gesture.) We need a candidate who will work to prepare our communities and our citizens for the very real dangers of climate change. We need a candidate who admits that globalization will happen with or without us, and shows us how we can adapt to this new reality, rather than bashing 20-year old trade deals or blaming foreign governments. We need a candidate who celebrates our multi-racial, multi-gendered heritage and realizes that “From Many One” is more than a motto stamped on a coin. And most of all we need a candidate who agrees that concentrating 40% of the nation’s wealth in the hands of 1% of the population is not only immoral but an existential threat to our democracy.

THAT person should be our next president.

So come on people, this election is over. You’ve now got a four-year head start to make a difference. Time to stop worrying about yesterday, and instead start creating your own tomorrow.