Among the indirect lessons, the first is the failure of the major journalism media and the social networks to forecast victory. This is because nowadays the mass media speak only to their kindred audience, confirming their prejudices instead of singling them out and discussing them. Often they are interested only in large urban centers and not in rural and poor areas whose problems they ignore, when in the end it is they who so often change the momentum in the results. Finally, the collapse of their income require them to finance their work with propaganda, advertising and support of ideologically oriented groups, which are always a weak minority (but with a loud voice) compared to the bulk of the population. This specialists' analysis[i], although limited, is certainly valid and suggests a reflection.

In the work for JPIC (Justice Peace Integrity of Creation), we still use the traditional communication channels: sermons, conferences, seminars, courses, books, magazines. We still tend to think that the major newspapers, the expensive television and radio chains are the public opinion leaders and keepers, but it's no longer so;  socials have taken a good chunk of the fourth power and moreover they are manipulated by those who support them[ii] and/or are inundated with fake messages aiming to manipulate public opinion.[iii] Socials are to be free and open to all, even the “trolls” have access to them. How many Catholics voted for Trump because they read in Face Book the fake message that Pope Francis had endorsed him? How many geared toward Clinton thanks to videos rightly & wrongly accusing Trump of all those sins? My email box has been saturated for months by letters, campaigns and articles that intended to make me feel a criminal if I did not regard one or the other candidate a firebrand of hell. Do not think, was the message, listen to party bias. It did not work for me because I was not going to vote, but on how many did all this have an impact? It is nowadays called post-truth, the Oxford Dictionaries' Word of the Year for 2016, a truth "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."[iv]

This is why the forecasts have failed: many feared to reveal their vote because it would have been seen at odds with so-called political correctness[v]. Hillary got the expected votes, but it was Trump who shattered all expectations. There is nowadays a "rising ideological factor", an ongoing all over the field cultural battle from "progressive elites aiming to destroy the Christian roots": abortion, gay marriage, transgender toilets and so on. "If one looks at Hollywood movies he or she would think that America is an anti-Christian country ". Trump perceived this and milked it. No use denying it.[vi] Even the Amish have for the first time been to vote; results indicate Trump decisively won a majority of those self-identifying as Catholics, by 52 to 45 percent. By contrast, President Barack Obama beat the Catholics narrowly, by a margin of 50 to 48 percent, in 2012. Evangelicals flocked to Trump in far more overwhelming numbers, by a massive 81 to 16 percent[vii]. Trump also outperformed expectations among Hispanic and African-American voters, while Clinton under-performed with both groups[viii]. Was it caused by the Obama's flop on welfare? Not only. Contempt for the religious dimension is perceived by people as a lack of respect for their culture, their lives, their persons. This is always decisive when deciding on the common good. Hispanic women asked me if it was true that those who vote for Clinton go to hell –because of her statement on the right to abortion until the last day of pregnancy. Hard to say who is acting in a just and fair way or not, but there is no way of denying a cultural battle is in progress; it's enough to have a look at articles that appear here and there. Here is one: The United States is not a Christian nation, and the Bible is not the cornerstone of our law[ix], where Fathers of the Nation are also quoted: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.

Commitment to JPIC cannot ignore the deep contempt of the modern world (atheist but rather indifferent than hostile) toward religion, a fact that actually reveals how religion is perceived as having an important role in all aspects of social life. Multiculturalism and religious pluralism is found in geographic terms and in any situation where differences are given; they steep often in conflicts and call for a daily inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue based on mutual and understanding communication; however, they ask to avoid all forms of syncretism. The cultural and religious syncretism involves serious risks. Even nowadays people act led by values ​​and ideas that they consider inalienable. If these values ​​and ideas are neither clear nor shared, ambiguity and conflict abound. No objection to collaboration, but avoiding the ideological drift in the values ​​and ideas of economic and political matter, is essential. Groups, political parties, NGOs have their own agenda and their goals; when these are hidden, the common struggle for the JPIC ends to support them, perhaps unwarily. Collaboration demands clarity so as not to be manipulated by those who speak louder and impose themselves. Working together for JPIC despite differences therefore requires a deep religious identity, a clear and conscious cultural identity, a personal inner and assumed identity that allows a reasoned analysis of the differences. This US election showed how speaking only to and on behalf of specific groups -of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or culture[x]- was a fatal mistake for Hillary: each time she made an address it was to Hispanics, or women, or blacks, or to LGBT people, whereas millions of Americans do not belong to any of these groups and felt excluded.[xi] There is no room nowadays, if ever there was, for arrogance when looking for a successful advocacy on behalf of the poor and marginalized: "hubris in classical literature always announces a fall"[xii]. Commitment for JPIC is not go out on the streets, to be seen, to make our presence to be felt. This time is over. Today we have to work in silence, in humility, in a profound way, forming activists who are to be hidden stones while building the society, leaven and salt the Gospel would say, rather than a blazing light that blinds instead of lighting.

Two direct and concrete lessons for JPIC work can be drawn from this election. The starting point is to understand globally, the dynamics that played between Trump, Sanders & Clinton. A very good article summed it up in three words: Exit, loyalty and voice[xiii].

Donald Trump rejecting both major parties, mocking most institutions, embodied the exit impulse. Bernie Sanders, putting into words the concerns of people who believe that their country has been hijacked by Wall Street and other power players embodied the voice. Clinton embodied loyalty; this cannot excite followers, because it does not communicate a commitment to meaningful change. The result was that millions of people from all walks of life have turned away from public life. And that is asking for "A new set of institutional leaders — religious, business, labor and civic leaders, university and hospital heads" to fill the growing vacuum. This is true for the US and for many if for not all other countries; and it is an opportunity for those who are committed to JPIC -it is a space for their contribution to the whole society in order to build a new and better world. This is especially true for young people. The US elections showed how much they can do to promote their ideals, but also how many of them are unable to cross the bridge of turning great ideals into a concrete commitment. According to a police report of Portland among the first 169 arrested in riots against the Trump election, 39 were registered to vote but did not, another 36 were not even registered despite having the right. If we want a social change, the serious formation on JPIC for young people should be a priority commitment.