My feelings were sure wrong when I wrote on Election Day that they were telling me the election would go like 2012, not 2016. Just when polls were saying that the late breaking vote was going Kamala Harris’ way, a tsunami of Trump Election Day voters swamped her and other Democrats. Still, I’m glad I posted what posted, so that I can remind myself how out of touch my feelings can be.

On that note of self-doubt, I should refrain from saying anything about the debacle. So much is being written about it, even as those who are doing the writing often do so while advising everyone else to take a breath and wait to figure out what happened and what to do. There is, however, a fact I saw in a column by the astute L.A. Times political reporter Mark Z. Baraback that stands out: between 1960 and 1998, 38 years and 19 national elections, there were only seven votes that changed party control of the White House, the Senate or the House. In the 13 elections since 2000, however, there have been ten changes of control.

People are unhappy and have been so a while. When people are unhappy they do counter-productive things. Things, like, well, voting for Donald Trump. That’s why John Maynard Keynes developed a new economic theory in the 1930s—because he saw how chaos and economic distress caused people to turn to fascism and give up on established norms. Mind, I am not calling anyone, least of all any Trump voter, a fascist. But unhappy people want change, and no one promises more change than Donald Trump. Note that the two most successful politicians of the past 20 years, Trump and Barack Obama, both ran on hope and change.

Why are people unhappy? Why do they feel so insecure, so threatened and vulnerable? It’s paradoxical, because the world has never been more productive when it comes to material goods. We should all be swimming in prosperity—not coincidentally, precisely what Trump promises.

Again, why? Politicians and political analysts will look for reasons for the unhappiness, and, more specifically, for why so many Americans turned to Trump; reasons that will, no surprise, fit their varying perspectives. However, from the broadest view possible I suggest that the problem can be summed up with the title of a 2018 book I heartily recommend by Robert Kuttner: Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?

• • •

The local election here in Santa Monica was quite different. Here liberals won, defeating a local fear-based campaign that reflected the Trumpian zeitgeist. (I wrote about this a few weeks ago.)

So, congratulations to the United Slate of Dan Hall, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell, and Natalya Zernitskaya. They will join Caroline Torosis and Jesse Zwick to form an unprecedented, six-out-seven liberal and pro-housing and social services majority on the City Council. At the same time, a parking tax and a big school bond also passed easily.

I am not surprised. In the election two years ago Santa Monica voters returned to their liberal traditions, but in that election four liberal candidates for three seats split the vote and only two of them, Torosis and Zwick, were victorious. That split delayed a new liberal majority on the council. Until now. This time Raskin and Zernitskaya ran together in a slate of four candidates for four seats. They all won.

Personally, these last two local elections have been gratifying. Not only do we have a new generation of leaders in Santa Monica, young leaders who will make us proud, but also the liberalism shared by nearly all Santa Monicans will no longer be distorted on the council by otherwise liberal council members spouting illiberal and specious excuses for why we should not provide housing for the current generation of young people and generations to come.

For me it’s been 30 years since I was appointed to the Housing Commission and started agitating for more housing, often to be vilified as “in the pocket of developers.” When I saw the vote totals Tuesday night, showing the United Slate well ahead, it felt good, a little bit of starlight in a dark night.

And with that Trumpian note of personal grievance combined with self-satisfaction, all I have left to say is:

Thanks for reading.