The Political Stories I Can't Read After Trump's Win

In the wake of Donald Trump's surprise (for many people) victory in the general election, I find myself just as hooked on politics as I've ever been. On the edge of burnout, mind you, but just as hooked as ever.

But there's one type of article I just cant bring myself to read anymore. I'll see the headline, find it interesting, and almost click. Then I stop myself.

It's the political analysis article telling me what to expect next. 

Some guy from the New York Times wants to tell me that Trump's climate change policies could work in surpising ways. Somebody else at Slate wants to tell me that Trump will be a gift to Wall Street. 

What the hell do these guys know?

The media said Trump couldn't win the primary, and he did. Then they ignored their mistakes and said he couldn't win the general, and he did. 

Now they want to tell me they know what will happen next with climate change or financial matters?

How can they know?

This election exposed just how much the media really knows, which is a lot less than they think. So much of their punditry is based upon rules that somehow became rules not because they were laws of nature, but because others followed them and they assumed that's just how things had to be.

And that assumption was wrong.

We're living in an age where all of society's institutions have lost some of the authority they wanted to portray. The police can't claim to always be the good guy. The protesters who protest them can't claim to always be the oppressed. Republicans who went for Trump can't claim the moral high ground of family values. Democrats can't claim they understand the working man.

For good or for bad, today's emperors really do have no clothes. And while our society adjusts to this new reality, one of those groups, the media's pundit class, sure as hell doesn't get to act like it knows what happens next.