A personal note on respectful democracy

Sharing my presidential vote choice and a story of a bar fight gone right

In 1996, NYT Crossword Editor Will Shortz ran a famous crossword that worked in the case of either Bob Dole or Bill Clinton winning the election. We can make such happy times again.

This weekend before the election, my family and I drove through rural New Hampshire. As a swing state, the roads are covered with masses of political signs, most of which are civil or at least funny. What’s it like to live next to someone who is voting for the Other Person? Even though the rhetoric du jour is “save democracy!” I worry that we’re forgetting to be friendly to somebody with the Other’s road signs. This is a horrific thought of course, because truly saving democracy is connecting as humans with people you may not agree with, casting your vote, then getting back to work together the day after the election. In rural New Hampshire, there are practical reasons to maintain respectful and friendly relationships, but those practicalities are increasingly absent in digital and city life. So, in the hope of role-modeling the respectful discourse needed to humanize the Other and save democracy, I’ll trust you with my politics. Then let’s finish this election and continue building things together. -Dan

---

Sometime in 2012, I’m walking out of a bar to get in a fight. This is funny because I don’t even like bars and I like the idea of getting hurt at one even less. But at this moment I’m with a troublemaker friend, charismatic and handsome in a big night out, who likely made the wrong comment to the wrong guy’s girlfriend. Or it could have been the weird phenomenon of stocky guys picking fights with tall guys. I don’t know what the exact stupidity was, but I’m not bailing on a friend. So the handful of men involved with this primal display fan out on the street, and the two main bucks square off. Everybody is waiting for the first punch to be thrown.

On the beat for the first drunken haymaker, an Uber pulls up and my friend Eric pops out. “Sorry I’m late everybody!” Everybody freezes. Magnificently oblivious, Eric scampers up to the two men in the middle. He hugs our friend then jovially extends his hand to the other guy. “Well, Hi! I’m Eric! What’s your name?”

The other combatant is bewildered and disarmed. “Um, Hi, I’m Brock.” Then shakes Eric’s hand.

And that was it. Then, we all introduce ourselves … and just hang out. After a cigarette or two worth of time, we all go our separate ways.

---

I think a lot about Eric’s diffusion of that tension. It’s as beautiful as it is comical. In the flash of an extended hand and an earnest smile, the mysterious enemy is instantly just another drunk dude with a name and a bad story of bar shenanigans. We got into that situation because of snowballing emotional momentum that nobody really wanted. Even if Eric had properly read the body language and intentionally done something to break up the fight (he confirms this was purely a naive accident), he couldn’t have done a better mediation if he tried.  

Well, it’s election season here in America, and unfortunately Eric can’t pop out of the car for this one. But it doesn’t need to be that hard to extend a hand and talk to each other.

I wonder how many hardcore Kamala voters know a single Trump voter, and visa versa. We all know there are radicalization forces that push us further away: social apps, the SAASification of political machines (how many spam texts do you get? I get 5-10 a day from Kamala thanks to donations in 2016) and media companies making money from the worst fringes. Yet how many people earnestly discuss their moderate views? I think a concerning majority of people don’t share their views out of fear for negative feedback. 

In finance/tech speak, the term for posting politically is an “asymmetric-negative bet.” Becoming an outcast for a political post is a huge cost for a very minor gain. So most professionals do the rational thing and stay quiet. But now we’re in a Tragedy of the Commons situation because the only people willing to engage with the democratic process are attention-seekers and extremists.

Especially as a person working in climate, I wonder what the blowback would be for someone who calmly said that they took their vote seriously, did extensive research, had long conversations with people different from them and then concluded their vote is best cast for Trump.

Well, let’s run the experiment. This year, after a lifelong all-blue voting streak, I’m voting for Donald Trump. AMA.

---

More than the Presidential vote, I’m voting for depolarization. I hope this letter holds more weight than my vote. No matter what, I’m here to give everyone my best.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything aside from the importance of civil open-minded communication. It’s the day before the election and I know firsthand that if you feel disgust at Trump, it won’t resolve in 24 hours. Also, it’s warm, personal connections that helped me change my mind, not the internet. I’m just sharing this to do my part for what I think respectful democracy can look like.

No matter who wins, I’ll cheer in January and move on. We’re Americans first and foremost. I have smart and wonderful friends, likely many of my colleagues, who deeply believe in Kamala. So if she wins, I’ll charge forward with them and do my best for an optimistic future. I hope to collaborate with either Administration.

If you are curious about my take, I have a few high-level comments below. 

Would I write this if I was voting for Harris? Yes, if I felt I had something to contribute. There are already a few good writeups out there, and a quick skim on X shows some respectful pitches for a Kamala vote which I appreciate. But I do think it’s important to humanize a viewpoint that is under-represented in science/academia. This is how we build bipartisan efforts that welcome in everybody.

How on Earth can a person who works in climate vote Trump?

To get the quick insults over with, no I’m not a racist, misogynist, Russian asset, AIPAC hack, populist, pundit, low-information voter, low-IQ voter, Trumpet, weirdo, or whatever other mean phrases float around the internet. Please no more name-calling. Take me at my word that I’m a nice guy who works hard to be good to others.

One of my principles is to judge actions, not people. So I have no intrinsic judgements on either presidential candidate. I think they both can be great and I’m only going to react to the campaigns. At the core, I think the Harris/Walz campaign underperformed and Trump/Vance campaign impressed.

The irony is that Harris/Walz ran a campaign based on vibes and protest that feels like Trump2016, while Trump/Vance ran a surprisingly adult campaign. The only real policy I’ve heard from Harris/Walz is Taxes on Tips (lifted from Trump), Tax Unrealized Gains (so flawed even Noah Smith had to roast it) and a page of financial promises to black men in an effort to court their vote. In contrast, and in defiance of stereotypes, the Trump/Vance put out surprising amount of substance that treats their audience as smart. 

The bullet grazed Trump’s ear in July because was looking to the left to point at a graph on a slide about immigration. This reminds me of the subtle but deep optimism Ross Perot must have had in the American political consumer when he bought 30-minute slots on C-SPAN to walk through his slides in 1992. My family and I laughed at Perot at the time, now I’m pretty touched. Similarly, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Trump was really good on this economics interview: I’m still not sure if he’s technically correct, but he pushes a coherent-sounding thesis and negotiates a debate-heavy interview.

Vance started rocky with going straight to the reactive “childless cat lady” snark, but by the end of the campaign you can see why he was chosen. He is smart and I value his skillset. I listened to him talk about the bond market and international treasuries for 10 minutes on the Tucker Carlson podcast. This impressed me because I worry very much about this topic and I don’t see the Harris/Walz camp addressing it. When a potential adversaries holds the power to crash our currency, and the looming fiscal impossibility of boomer retirement liabilities makes the USD an increasingly questionable asset, we need a person, no matter how impolite, who is qualified to lead experts. 

(yes, ugh, this is a clickbaity title… the link should go to the point of economic discussion.)

The Kamala/Walz campaign turned me off by courting the intellectual voter but refusing to engage dynamically and on any substantial issue. I make space for the argument that she’s playing the campaign extremely cautiously, and might be stronger as President, but my choice as a voter is to emphasize the campaign. I saw statistics in a paywalled PDF that showed a paradox that the majority of college-educated people prefer Trump’s policies but will vote Harris anyway. So we got Brat Summer and “Weird” and “Harris. Walz. Obviously.” swag, and a disappointing avoidance of anything but the friendliest interviews.  Aside from abortion rights, going from just the Harris/Walz campaign, I just don’t know what I would be voting for.

If this was “Trump Vance Duh” I would also be insulted.

The Harris/Walz opacity on policy mirrors what my conservative friends gripe about with climate topics. My experience is that conservatives don’t doubt climate problems, they doubt the current solutions. And they’re all sick of being treated like they are dumb. The analogy here is Jon Stewart versus John Oliver: Stewart was a great talking head for progressives because his intelligent exasperation flavor of comedy has a broad appeal, whereas Oliver’s tendency to condescension is polarizing.

Jon Stewart’s humor was substantial and based on exasperation, which welcomes everybody. John Oliver’s humor is neurotic and based on condescension, which appeals to fewer.

Lastly, and most importantly, I hear my Kamala-voting friends and family on the abortion point. It was honestly my last sticking point too and I get why women bias towards Harris. I identify as strongly pro-choice and I feel their nervousness, but I also think “reproductive freedom” is the only strongest leverage point Harris/Walz have so they are digging in hard with all tricks. To the best of my research, Trump has distanced himself from the extreme stances on abortion. So my best guess is that the most likely steady-state outcome is the status quo we have today, effectively leaving it to the states, and it will remain regardless of the who wins the presidency.

So to wrap up, here are the issues I see:

• Cyclicality: Cancellation fears by moderates have enabled excesses of the Left, and it’s time for a cyclical shift. San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Portland are cities suffering from these excesses and would benefit from breaking the political monoculture. The past 20 years have brought magnificent progress for LQBT and DEI efforts, and I cheer for these. My vote is based on the belief that a peaceful cyclical shift will lock in this position of the Overton Window, while pushing too much further Left will risk the gains made.

• Financial: Government spending has to be brought under control if we are to balance the budget. It not, we risk becoming Argentina, printing money to nowhere while other countries disregard the USD. Consider that Social Security was invented when the ratio of workers to retirees was 30-to-1, now it’s a 3-1 workers-boomers ratio. If there is not a narrative of US stability that investors believe, the results could be catastrophic.

• Maslow is real: Climate policy means nothing if we have a failed currency and unsafe place to do the work.

• International relations: Yes it makes people uncomfortable that Trump and Putin have a direct personal line, but Biden calling Xi a “Thug” for four years didn’t accomplish anything. I’ll vote for human connection.

• The crux of “The Dress” olive/blue: To some, Trump is a fascist monster. To others, he is the only path to global stability. I used to believe the former, but today I’m not convinced by either of these takes, so they zero out for me. Similarly, conservative communities have their own choice of how to view Kamala. I choose to see either option as just another US President.

• Depolarizing the media: Once you step off the Kamala road, you get pretty concerned by the media coordination and see why public trust in media is plummeting. This was Trump’s 2016 favorite refrain, but I think the reaction to him has ironically increased the coordination to a point that most people can see. The sudden effort to define masculinity was a pretty clear canary moment for me.

If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. This is where my research and conversations got me in this election cycle. And if we disagree, we can disagree constructively. This is how science and progress happens.

At the end of the decade, we need progress more than vibes. So I leave you with this remarkable moment of a skyscraper-sized rocket landing back on Earth with a precision measurable in centimeters. Say whatever you want about the guy personally, but this moment not have happened without Elon Musk. Let’s wrap up this election and move forward together.