It was not an obvious choice for me between the two candidates. Democratic countries supposedly become increasingly secular as time passes, but choosing either candidate in this race presupposed a faith more often ascribed to religion.

One candidate's campaign is practically indistinguishable from a high school student council race. The campaign platform distills to: 'I promise to represent everyone' and/or 'the other person is gross.'

The other candidate's campaign is indistinguishable from one of Huey Long's.

Challenges that arrive as we imagined them are typically surmountable. But sustained challenges--whether educational, military, or political--are often difficult because they turn out to be very different than we expected. We are not challenged in the ways we had anticipated.

This can seem unfair. I expected harder tests in boarding school, but what I found were much more challenging social dynamics centered around everything but academics. Troops deployed to Iraq expecting a John Wayne western, and--whatever it was--more of them killed themselves than were killed by "the enemy." It is perhaps less desirable than an expected challenge.

The coming political period will be challenging but especially for those who support whoever loses. And I am certain the challenges will not be as their political antagonists anticipate.

Probably, the United States will be fine with either. Yet the way in which citizens are challenged will likely differ based on the candidate elected. Whether the fulcrum comes from China, Russia, or internal faction is out of our hands. But one candidate or the other will make different problems--or "challenges," to keep the language consistent--from that grist.

I think I used to feel a twinge of civic pride when I left the polls.