Cheering for America, while trying not to forget the past decade

Campaign signs for former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the respective GOP and Democratic presidential nominees, appear Sunday, Oct. 20, 2024, on Mount Desert Island in Maine. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda | States Newsroom)

So many things can — and likely will be — said about this election.

Congratulations to the Republicans and Donald Trump who created history by winning an election and vaporizing the notion that he could never take the popular vote. A hopeful take-away for me is that it could vanquish the talk of election fraud, too.

My criticisms of Trump and his party remain unchanged, although clearly in the minority in Montana. I have at least been consistent since I first started opining about Trump in 2016, when others were laughing at his cartoonish entry into the otherwise stuffy GOP circles. And, it's not like being critical of the GOP is new for a journalist in Montana.

We learned a lot about Montana in the national election on Tuesday night, bleeding into Wednesday morning. If there were thoughts about a pluralistic Montana that blended conservative and liberal into a purple hue, that should be about as dead as the fact that there are no Democrats left in statewide office.

Montana is R, as in Republican and red, even though I suppose the Dems can claim victory in an expected tempering of the Legislature. The supermajority may be gone, but not the GOP dominance.

Montana is also a confusing place, where people kind of shrug and say generic things like, "libertarian," although that's about as nuanced as believing everyone in this state loves Trump, something also not borne out by any data, but supported by wide popular belief. I am not sure any politician or pundit can quite square that Montanans decisively supported abortion protection while overwhelmingly supporting those who have done everything in their power to stop it.

But if Montana is no longer purple, at least it has shown it's ability to split its ticket, so to speak.

And, there's ample evidence to prove that Montanans crossed over on a lot of races, even though, in the end, it all seemed to even out in the overarching theme of Republican victory. For example, as of the writing of this column, more than 317,000 people had voted for Trump and even more for Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte. Yet, looking at the race between Senator-elect Tim Sheehy and outgoing Sen. Jon Tester, Sheehy trailed their tallies by 30,000 votes. There's good evidence of cross-over.

While this election has answered the very basic question of who has won and which party will be in control, I have to admit: In Montana, it leaves the media with a lot more work to do.

For example, in both the cases of Trump and Sheehy, the press extensively covered their problems and miscues, but even when the facts were laid bare, it seemed to matter little. Does that mean that people don't care? Does it mean they didn't read? Or, has politics become strictly tribal?

During the run-up to the governor's race, I have rarely seen the GOP so divided among its leaders as Gianforte pointed the finger at counties and cities for out-of-control spending, while Republicans at the local level roared back it was his fault. Democrat Ryan Busse ran a campaign centered around the messaging of property tax. On the campaign trail, we heard from every corner of the state that property taxes in Montana are out of control and squeezing the economic life from residents. In the end, it seemed no Republican took the blame for property taxes.

And yet, show me one Montana resident who is pleased with property taxes.

Gianforte was so popular that the Associated Press had called the governor's race before the clock struck 8:01 p.m.

That may take a bit to unwind.

People on both sides of the political spectrum were frustrated with the media, an easy scapegoat, especially during times of dwindling resources at corporate-owned outlets. Liberals were frustrated that the media wasn't digging deeper, doing more stories, and seemed to scrutinize left-leaning candidates, while giving Republicans what they believed was a free pass.

Many Republicans instead took to social media, radio or television that they felt were more friendly, skirting journalists at media outlets from weekly newspapers to The New York Times.

I have said repeatedly that the only messages politicians understand are those given at the ballot box, and as long as voters keep electing people who refuse to answer questions or respond to reporters, there's no incentive for any type of transparency. It's what risk management looks like in politics.

Before 8 a.m., Wednesday I had already received several emails from some concerned readers doing their best imitation of Philadelphia sports fans, of whom it has been said that they're awful in defeat and even worse in victory.

I have responded to none, and hope this column serves as a response.

I don't hate or dislike the Republicans or conservatives. Truth be told, I am a cross-over voter in some races. My job is simply to check those in power, a definition of journalism created long before I was born. When asked why is it that we're so hard on Republicans, my simple response is: I'd check the Democrats if they were in power.

I cheer for America, period, not any party.

For those who believe our power should be checked, I'd argue that people have been checking the media for years by deciding when and even if they'll read the news.

So to those souls who are relishing the taste of bitter media tears, nothing would make me happier than for Trump or even the Republican-dominated Montana to be successful. I, too, want lower prices; I want a clean environment; I want good schools for my kids; I want equal opportunities for everyone. If Trump will do that, and the rest of the Montana Republicans can achieve that, then I'll happily shed my tears, joyfully.

But, you know what they say about those who forget the past?

Or, did they ban that book, too?