The presidency of the United States is undoubtedly the highest leadership position in the United States of America (and some would say the world), yet this year's campaign is composed of two terrible examples of leaders. James C. Hunter, author of The Servant, defines leaderships as "the skill of influencing people to work enthusiastically toward goals identified as being for the common good." Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have both failed in this capacity.

The first grievance against the candidates is their corrupt manipulation of power. Both candidates are guilty of using money as a means to coerce people into working toward their goals. There is a stark difference between power and authority. Hunter cites power as "the ability to to force or coerce someone to do your will, even if they would choose not to, because of your position or your might." Contrast this with authority, which he defines as "the skill of getting people to willingly do your will, because of your personal influence." Authority is not taken but earned. It is a skill that requires commitment and learning. Trump and Clinton have circumvented this key element of leadership by throwing money at their problems. It is the way by which they gain the support of key lobbying factions and shut up their adversaries.

This campaign has been fraught with scandal. From Hillary's missing emails and the Benghazi scandal to Donald Trump's racist commentary and flippant sexual commentary, there has been no shortage of entertainment. Yet, this is not Entertainment Tonight. Any sensible voter should be concerned with the lack of professionalism displayed in this election cycle. In The Servant, Hunter writes, "Leadership is not about personality, possessions, or charisma, but all about who you are as a person. I used to believe that leadership was about style but now I know that leadership is about substance, namely character." It is difficult to discern the character of either nominee when each has a campaign rife with lies. Authenticity is a highly-coveted trait in a leader, yet neither candidate is trustworthy.

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this election is the extreme partisanship. This country has never before been so polarized by the two-party system. Instead of addressing the issues, political leaders often launch nasty personal attacks on the other party or its constituents. Such behavior has created an ineffective work environment where little is achieved. Regarding this resentment, Hunter writes, "Forgiving behavior is dealing with situations as they arise in an assertive manner and then letting go of any lingering resentment. As the leader, if you are not able to let go of the resentment, it will consume you and render you ineffective." If there is such deep resentment between the two party nominees⎯those chosen to represent the party⎯how effective will the political system be going forward? They are setting a very poor example of how leaders should act, and it will indubitably create negative consequences for the country if they do not clean up their act. The political atmosphere desperately needs forgiveness on both sides in order to move forward with an agenda.

Such a leadership vacuum is not a reason to withhold from voting. More than ever, the people need to voice their opinions and remind the politicians who they serve. Although the deceitfulness is certainly a barrier, it is the duty of the American people to do their research on candidates. Unfortunately, the current lackluster choices are a result of lack of knowledge on the part of the American people. What style of leadership do you want holding the most important job in the country, if not the world?