After the last debate, when both candidates tried their best to discredit the other (Trump with Clinton’s E-mail scandal, and Clinton with Trump’s sexist comments) it became readily apparent (not that it hadn’t been before) that neither candidate is respectable or capable of taking the high-road. The field of potential presidents has never looked quite so desolate, and regardless of who becomes president, this race has done more to discourage voters than any before.
When we are at such a nadir of approbation for the democratic process, the only hope is that people may begin to remember what characteristics make for a good leader. Since the most common argument in favor of Trump is that, “He’ll get things done,” and for Clinton it’s, “I’d rather have her than Trump,” it would be wise to examine these statements and then compare them to reasons why past leaders were put into various offices, and what effect that had upon the state.
“He’ll get things done,” is an odd claim for a democratically elected president, as the congress is supposed to do things, while the president is merely to approve or veto their actions as the situation entails. This statement plays upon our belief that an active government is a good one, however, a republic is supposed to be rather sluggish in making decisions and changes as this deters poor laws, regulations, and actions from taking effect to quickly and disrupting society all at once. A leader should not be elected to cause upheaval, and Trump’s ability to sincerely represent all Americans is doubtful due to his outspoken condemnation of so many different groups.
“I’d rather have her [Clinton] than Trump,” is another statement that conflicts with democratic ideals. One, it creates the illusion that there are only two options, when in fact there are many third-party candidates who would make better presidents than either of the two front runners. Two, choosing to vote for someone only to spite another nominee is ridiculous, just because Trump is unqualified does not mean that Clinton is qualified, she should only be voted for if she would make for a good president. Clinton’s fitness for the presidency is questionable as she has far too many scandals circling about her, and though not all of them may be true, where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and she has been in politics for too long to be clean.
Looking back through history, we can see that many politicians have been brought to power through similar claims as the support for Trump and Clinton issue. Hitler was touted as being an active candidate who would, “get things done.” Of course, these things turned out to be the WWII and the Holocaust, but at least he did something! Hitler was also viewed by many as the only option other than communism (“I’d rather have Hitler than Moscow”), this put him as the only correct choice and assured his victory. Many other rulers have used similar tactics, Stalin murdered Trotsky, his only major competition, and did much to turn away from the few good reforms that Lenin had started and turned Russia into the hopeless and bloodthirsty Soviet Union that we faced off against during the Cold War. Castro unified Cuba against Batista (a vicious dictator), portraying himself as the only candidate who could rid Cuba of the tyrant and U.S. influence, however, as soon as he accomplished these goals he began murdering his own people to keep himself in office. I could go on for many pages listing all of the many people who have manipulated their way to power, but the point has been made.
Any would-be leader who must rely on being, “the only option,” or, “the only thing keeping this-or-that out,” does not deserve to be elected. These are weak and dishonest arguments that create discord between the people and turn us against one another, allowing fools and tyrants to take power. Virtuous leaders should not lower themselves into the gutter, and we shouldn’t pay attention to the ones who are already there.
