It's beginning to look like this may be a presidential race unlike any other in our collective memory. We have what seems to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, in which continued polling shows negative trust for both candidates, with many claiming their votes will not be "for" a candidate but "against" the other candidate. Consistent with that perspective, the majority of what we have heard from the candidates to date has not been a careful explanation of their proposed policies on defense, economics, jobs and the myriad other challenges facing individual Americans. Rather, it has largely consisted of two primary message themes: extreme criticism and condemnation of their opponent and general platitudes that sound nice but tell us nothing, such as "Make America Great Again" or "We Must Build the Future Together." It seems the goal of both candidates is to win more by pounding home the message that "the other candidate is worse than me," rather than explaining clearly and specifically why he or she is the better candidate. This doesn't seem the best way to choose our next president ("In first post-convention poll, Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump, 46-39," Aug. 1).
To a great degree, and contrary to statements from both candidates, neither seems to be highly qualified to hold the highest office. While former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has indeed been a first lady and senator, I don't think many would characterize her record as stellar. As first lady, she failed in gaining approval for health care reform. In the U.S. Senate, she acted consistent with party leadership but sponsored no significant legislation and as secretary of state she appeared physically and emotionally worn out by the job, and there are those who say her actions — or lack of actions — contributed to the lingering problems in Southwest Asia and the death of an American ambassador in Libya. Some would say she was filling the resume squares for a presidential bid. To many, she characterizes the typical Washington insider politician — grand promises, inconsistent results.
On the other hand, we have Donald Trump who is an anomaly. He also, perhaps to a greater degree than Secretary Clinton, provides no details on policy. His entire campaign is based on his personality and making statements that resonate with a large portion of the American population who believe that the loss of jobs overseas, the decline of the middle class and the increasing violence and terrorism acts in our country legitimately threaten the traditional view of a united American society and the opportunity to achieve the American Dream of self-sufficiency. His message does resonate, but it seems his fatal flaw is to continually devolve to impulsive, immature and inflammatory statements. His sole possible strength, in spite of comments regarding his business practices, is his consistent business record of getting things done, albeit outside of the political arena. Again, it's hard to not think of this in terms of "who will do the least harm" instead of who is legitimately the better candidate.
One would hope that the next few months will provide voters the more detailed information of the policies, plans and character of the candidates to make an informed decision. But the past year has shown no indication that will be achieved. If not, then many of us will devolve to voting "against" one candidate rather than "for" another and will likely vote with our emotions.
While we have weathered bad presidents In the past, this particular election is coming at what could be a significant turning point for our society. Are we going to be a united nation or a divided one? Are we going to make real progress on poverty by creating meaningful jobs or just create neve rending government programs? Our children will bear the consequences of the outcome of this election. Two things are necessary to say "we did our best" to get it right — we must show up at the polls and judge the candidates based on thoughtful reflection and not our emotions.
Jerry Cothran, Baltimore