On Nov. 9, how does Trump or Clinton heal the nation?

Bill Clinton did a good job reaching across the aisle to get things done with Republicans. So did Ronald Reagan. Their eras weren’t that long ago.

Evan Vucci/AP
Interpretive park ranger Caitlin Kostic (r.) gives a tour at Gettysburg National Military Park to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump Saturday in Gettysburg, Pa.

Yes, it’s been long. It’s been nasty. It’s been unpredictable in the extreme. At this point, almost everyone in the United States wishes it was over.

But probably the toughest part of the 2016 presidential campaign is yet to come: the aftermath.

How will the next president – Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump – move to heal the nation following an election that’s further polarized the electorate and brought some of the worst aspects of US politics to the fore?

After all, on November 9 the winner of the Oval Office will face a number of daunting realities, points out William Galston, a governance expert from the Brookings Institution.

First, the campaign hasn’t focused much to prepare voters for the real choices Washington faces in coming years, especially on economic policy. Second, it’s been full of rhetoric attacking the legitimacy of the election itself. Third, the outcome of the vote is likely to emphasize the widening racial and economic divides between the parties.

These divides “create a gap that the winner of the 2016 presidential election will find it hard to narrow unless he or she focuses on an agenda of national reconciliation starting on Day 1 of the transition,” writes Galston in a policy paper on the subject.

One bit of positive news is that both candidates have at least said that reconciliation will be one of their top priorities in the event of an election win.

“I want us to heal our country and bring it together,” says Hillary Clinton in an ad for swing state voters released this month. “My vision of America is an America where everyone has a place.”

In his speech on Saturday at the Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg, Pa., Donald Trump closed by asking voters “to rise above the noise and the clutter of our broken politics, and to embrace that great faith and optimism that has always been the central ingredient in the American character.” 

(Earlier in the speech, he did complain about the “rigged” system of US politics and said he would sue all the women who have come forward in recent weeks to accuse him of sexual improprieties.)

To some extent these sentiments simply reflect the normal closing arguments of a long campaign. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama based their initial presidential campaigns on promises to bridge the nation’s divides. Both, for various reasons, failed. If anything the 45th president of the United States will face an even more difficult, split nation.

But the next president-elect, in the name of national comity, if not unity, virtually has to make some gesture of rapprochement to the losing side.

Clinton's challenge

Right now that president-elect seems most likely to be Hillary Clinton, according to the vast majority of polls. One of her political challenges will be that the Trump campaign has revealed a deep strain of disillusion and anger among some white, blue-collar, largely male US voters. If she wins, Clinton will need to acknowledge the concerns of such Americans without appearing patronizing or vindictive.

Partly, that’s for purposes of national reconciliation with a group she labeled replete with “deplorables.” It’s also sound strategy to help her push future policies, says David Greenberg, a historian of American politics at Rutgers University and author of “Republic of Spin: An inside history of the American presidency.”

“Especially after the Trump campaign, it will be important for Hillary Clinton to reach out to Republicans, even Trump voters who really don’t like her, to try and ask for a fresh look,” says Greenberg.

That might not get Clinton much in the short term. That’s okay, says Greenberg, because the first 100 days of a presidency aren’t the defining characteristic the media often makes them out to be. Successful presidents haven’t always started out with a burst of legislative activity, despite the precedent set by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first months in office.

First step toward a successful presidency

What the best presidents have done is gain some good will and admiration from the other party, says Greenberg. Maybe that’s asking too much in today’s hyperpolarized Washington. But Bill Clinton did a good job reaching across the aisle to get things done with Republicans, Greenberg says. So did Ronald Reagan. Their eras weren’t that long ago.

“If I were Clinton I would have two agendas. One if the Democrats win the majority in the House and Senate, and another if they don’t,” says Greenberg.

How Clinton approaches the next two weeks might affect this outlook. Continuing to attack Trump as unfit to be president may not be enough to win her a broad, mandate-producing landslide victory. She’s got to begin her own pivot, away from anti-Trump campaign mode and towards her own hopes and plans.

“If Clinton can convince the country that she is going to win by offering up herself – as opposed to being there solely as an alternative to Trump – it could have implications for governing in the not-so-distant future,” writes ABC political director Rick Klein Monday.

Trump's No. 1 task: counter fear

As for Donald Trump, polls show that currently he has only an outside chance of prevailing in November. But outside chances occur.

If Trump wins, one of his biggest problems might be fear, given that polls show many Americans are afraid of his candidacy. His No. 1 job would be to counter this emotion, writes Britain’s Nigel Farage, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, an anti-immigration group that backed Britain’s exit from the European Union.

“If Trump were to win, it would be for him to disprove the doubters by showing that he’s not the kind of guy that would lead the US into ridiculous foreign wars and that he has a genuine agenda that will put the interests of the American people first,” writes Farage in a USA Today special project on post-election healing.

One quality Americans want: optimism

Whoever wins, next January they will become all America’s president. Their face will be on our screens and their words in our ears for years to come. They’ll be the symbol of the US government. And if there is one quality Americans want their president to convey, it’s optimism, according to Robert Bruner, a University of Virginia business professor and faculty associate at the Miller Center for Public Affairs.

Prof. Bruner writes that his recent research in presidential speeches and memoirs shows optimism to be an essential characteristic of successful presidents. Think of sunny Dwight Eisenhower and uplifting John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan and his “morning in America.”

“If a president wants to overcome national problems, she or he must mobilize others to deal with it,” writes Bruner as part of the Miller Center’s First Year 2017 presidential agenda project. “Optimism is an instrument of influence and leadership.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.