The post-election recovery isn’t going as planned.

On the first day after a presidential election, the losing party usually cries and curses. The second day they lick wounds. The third day they start to rationalize their new reality: “Okay, this is a loss, but there’s one good thing …” followed in short order by “I refuse to give up the fight.”

This one’s different.

The election reaction isn’t about America or the Constitution or the rightness/wrongness of the Electoral College. It isn’t even bigger-versus-smaller government. This time it’s about human rights and social justice. A thousand different talking points about thousands of different Trump weaknesses before the election gelled overnight into a single criticism that, perhaps, should have been the focus all along:

He’s a bigot.

Trump supporters think the opposition is a sore loser. They think it’s about an election – who won and how he won. To anti-Trumpers, that’s only a detail. What we have here is a failure to communicate. The NotMyPresident movement isn’t anti-American so much as a moral stand.

The core problem: Human rights and social justice are more important than the U.S. government. They define us not only as a nation, but also as human beings and citizens of the world. No one will travel 800 miles to Washington, D.C. to protest a sometimes-inefficient Electoral College. Millions will make the trip to fight for social justice – Google the 1960s for more information.

If there is to be a NeverTrump battle – and it’s not clear what will actually happen yet – it’s important for both sides to understand what the fight’s about.

Even Trump supporters know he’s sometimes racist, sexist and a long line of other “ists” that includes the disabled. Some like his hatred, calling it a breakdown of political correctness. Others dislike his hatred but consider it a black mark on an otherwise good presidential choice.

But for many people, human rights and social justice override everything else, including laws, fair elections and the U.S. Constitution.

If the law of the land allows hatred and discrimination to exist – and it did before the Civil Rights movement – then the laws are wrong. If laws once banned women from voting, they were wrong. And if presidential edicts, rules and regulations kick social justice in the ass, they’re wrong again this time.

It doesn’t matter if a discriminatory hate-filled regulation is created in the bowels of the Department of Immigration or if it’s already embedded in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Wrong is wrong, and if it impacts a cause worth fighting for – social justice, human rights, equality – citizens not only have a right to disregard it, they have a duty.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12, English Standard Version

Why this election is different

This time around, most Democrats aren’t bemoaning the voting details. There’s only a little talk about nixing the Electoral College, which is a common post-election refrain sung by losing sides, and Clinton’s lead in the popular vote is more an exclamation point at the end of the bigger discussion.

In my completely unscientific circle of friends, some people – including myself without success – are starting to flirt with the Day 3 rationalization listed above: “Okay, this could spark the Democratic party to really focus on people again.” Or “Okay, at least we understand the level of suffering and hate in this country – shame on us for missing it the first time around.”

But there’s another group of people – larger than I’ve ever seen – who refuse to accept a racist in the White House because it forces them, by default, to suggest that hate is sometimes-depending-on-the-details acceptable.

I’ve been advocating for social justice my whole life. How can I take a core belief and say it doesn’t matter for the next four years? I have an uneasy choice because “support our president” means “turn a blind eye to bigotry and hate.” They’re both in my DNA.

All’s not lost yet, but it’s in Donald Trump’s court.

The moves Trump makes over the next few weeks and first months of his presidency could either calm troubled waters or generate a comb-over tsunami of revolution. (And I hope I’m using the word “revolution” figuratively rather than literally.)

A number of liberals have posed this question: “What do I tell my kids about this election?”

If Trump doesn’t spend his first days in office building bridges and confirming basic human rights, the answer might be: “I joined the resistance.”

© 2016 SmithTakes.com