Michael Higginbotham's commentary "A battle for America's racial soul" (June 6) argues that the statements and positions regarding race and diversity of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, "define" the presidential battle.
While I agree with the criticism aimed at Mr. Trump regarding his often inappropriate, and at times abhorrent racial incitement I also find it difficult to put my faith in Ms. Clinton's claims regarding promoting racial unity and opportunity.
Many people fear she has said and will continue to say whatever is needed to get elected. She is no doubt politically savvy, and appears to craft her messages in each state to garner the support of key voting blocs. But taking a closer look at her statements, I find them no different than the unfulfilled promises and failed programs promised by presidential candidates over the last 25 years.
As Mr. Higgenbotham notes, Ms. Clinton's campaign has embraced the slogan "break down the barriers, championing opportunities for poor and excluded communities and vowing to destroy obstacles of equality in the economic, education, racial, gender, and LGBT arenas."
She further states that "America must be made whole, to include all of its citizens." Her rhetoric to a civil rights group in February "emphasizes economic solutions as well," promoting "better educational chances for young people and more support for families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own children."
At best, these are a sincere repetition of grand promises by candidates of the past, which though hopeful, have consistently failed to be realized or resolve the systemic issues they cite.
At worst, they are political pandering to the point of "buying" the votes of the disenfranchised through vague promises that will be lost in the quagmire of government political priorities and financial pressures.
For the first time in my memory, we are faced with choosing between two political candidates who, according to the polling data, no one really likes. We seem to be facing an election in which more voters will be voting "against" one candidate rather than "for" the other.
Mr. Trump is certainly the non-traditional candidate who seems to revel in being politically incorrect and provocative. He is showing complete disregard for carefully crafted political rhetoric.
Ms. Clinton represents, to many, the traditional "say anything to get elected" candidate, saddled with questionable sincerity and experience necessary to deliver on her promises.
Certainly this election is about inequalities in society — the immense popularity of Bernie Sanders has made that clear. And those inequalities are most prevalent in America's "racial soul."
But as we weigh our choices prior to election day, let's keep in mind that the role of the president is broad, encompassing national defense, the economy, a growing (and dangerous) national debt and keeping America in a position of global power and leadership.
Jobs and solutions do not come from, nor are they created by the government. Programs aimed at doing that have only served to increase our debt and maintain economic inequality.
Government actions promoting the private sector creation of jobs, and restoration of our middle-class industries and work force, have long been the traditional foundation of enriching our society. As we potentially face choosing between the lesser of two evils, let us move beyond single-issue voting to a broader American perspective, and hope for the best.
Jerry Cothran, Baltimore