So you think you elected an autocrat

So much of this article's tone is self-defeating and at times downright contradictory.

- Telling people not to view those who vote differently from you as monsters while quite literally calling the winning candidates monsters themselves.

- Promoting a globalist view when the voter sentiment seems to indicate that is not the will of the people

- "Be inclusive" while lending credence to the west coast seceding to Canada.

- "Be optimistic" while peddling that "your opponent hack[ed] your nation’s electoral system to eke out a narrow win?"

A line in the final paragraph sums this article up nicely: "Many, many countries have voted in autocratic clowns, monsters, or narcissists. It’s a mistake". No. That is the great things about elections in a democracy: it is not a mistake. The mistake the author thinking his opinion is representative of the nation as a whole.

Here is a subheading absent from this, and every other negative analysis piece about a presidential election:

"Be open minded: When two groups of well meaning people believe different things, strongly, the best answer is often a compromise of the two. That compromise is impossible without each group viewing the other's opinions with empathy and appreciation."

Having an autocrat in and of itself isn't inherently a terrible outcome. Having a malevolent, corrupt, misguided, or sadistic autocrat is what is terrible. A benevolent autocrat on the other hand presents a viable or superior alternative to democracy.

What do the downfalls Somalia,Yugoslavia,Zimbabwe and Afghanistan all have in common? The establishment of socialist governments! Granting far-reaching powers to the state in the name of a greater good makes a government ripe for autocratic rule.