If Americans learned one thing from last week’s debate, it is that both candidates are so demonstrably and manifestly unfit to be president. That being said, the following will not be a definite prescription for our current electoral illness; rather, it will diagnose the present situation and, later, prescribe a course for all disenchanted and disappointed voters to take in the face of our current political quagmire.
In the last debate, Americans were presented with Trump, a lifelong Democrat masquerading as a Republican this past year, whose policies are a mix of nationalistic protectionism, strongman authoritarianism and an inarticulate hodgepodge of isolationism and hawkishness. On the other hand, Americans were faced with a serial flip-flopper who, after holding relatively moderate positions her entire political life, has lurched far to the left to mollify the radical, socialist base of her party. Though obviously more experienced in government than her opponent, Hillary Clinton’s amassment of scandals raises serious questions about her capability to govern and lead effectively, while this past summer’s email scandal forces voters to doubt the former secretary of state’s commitment to national security.
Putting policy aside, why would it be wise to elect a serial philanderer, who habitually brags about his sexual conquests? What American would have their child look up to a man who openly mocks the disabled, insinuates publicly that women are hostile during their periods, claims he would date his own daughter and, most abhorrently, jokes about sexually assaulting women? Similarly, Clinton’s aforementioned habit of reversing constantly her position on nearly every issue epitomizes the insincerity and selfish opportunism we normally attribute to politicians. Both candidates are wholly unprincipled and have shown a proclivity to revise their policy preferences when it becomes politically convenient. At this point, I concede that Clinton is less prone to overt displays of mockery and subtle discrimination that have become commonplace on Donald Trump’s campaign. However, Clinton’s flippancy in the wake of the Benghazi hearings and her suspect and felonious behavior connected with her email scandal both point toward less-than-admirable aspects of her character.
To further expound on the candidates’ deficiencies in policy, it is important to point out that neither have advocated a traditionally conservative agenda. Trump, though the Republican nominee, has adopted and promulgated a strange brew of nationalism, populism and statism. Clinton has embraced the progressive, Bernie Sanders wing of her party alongside the traditional Democratic views on the military.With President Obama on pace to becoming the “first U.S. president in history to have never presided over a full year of growth averaging at least 3 percent,” one would expect the candidates to craft bold, proven approaches to improving the declining growth and household incomes. Yet, in this respect, both presidential candidates have failed the American people. Trump’s promising tax plan is essentially negated with his punitive tariff rates that will not only surely raise prices on everyday goods, but that have, historically, caused countries to retaliate reciprocally, causing bitter trade wars, to which some scholars have attributed the Great Depression. Clinton’s plan further adds onto the Obama administration’s punitive tax policies on earners, and has been estimated to lower after-tax incomes by .9 percent and reduce government revenues. No candidate, however, has proposed a holistically fiscally conservative policy that embraces the proven growth present in low-tax, low-regulation and free-trading economies.
With respect to our constitutional liberties as citizens, both candidates agree in denying due process and gun ownership to citizens on the verifiably flawed no-fly lists. Trump suggested opening up libel laws to sue publications that write “negative and horrible” articles. Also, Trump’s insistence that the election is rigged, and that he will only accept its results if he wins, seriously damages our country’s essential and universally accepted practice of peaceful transfers of power. Clinton has opposed and excoriated states that wish to implement Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to allow businesses to operate within their First Amendment rights. Clinton, like most Democrats, also wishes to set limits on the political speech guarantees outlined in Citizens United v. FEC.
Even considering the flaws and shortcomings of these candidates, nothing has been more disappointing than the lack of substance in this election, the last debate illustrative of a frustrating campaign season. The year 2016 was supposed to be a decisive one in our nation’s history, where Americans rallied against the political insider class and promoted bold and thoughtful policy solutions to our country’s ills. Instead, however, our two major party candidates are a former secretary of state who has a government insider for 30 years and her previous billionaire donor, who now purports to be advocating for the little guy.
I am not one to say that America is doomed after this election; we have overcome much worse as a nation and our republic is equipped to withstand the disasters of a Trump or Clinton presidency. Yet, I can offer no reasonable prescription to this particular electorate problem. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have proven to be incapable to carve out meaningful support and are similarly prone to verbal missteps on the campaign trail. There is simply no choice for president that will make this country better off. What every American should do, however, is vote their conscious up and down the ballot, paying close to attention to Congressional and state elections. And, from now on, apply a standard of morality, honesty, thoughtfulness and seriousness to each and every candidate that asks for your vote.
At the end of the day, Clinton and Trump may have won their party’s nominations and one of them will be president, but, in turn, liberty has lost, the Constitution has lost and Americans looking to meaningfully change our country’s course have lost, too.
Elias Neibart is a College freshman from Morristown, New Jersey
