What's To Come

Next week we'll elect a new President. And, as I have said before, we all lose. Maybe things will be better in four years – if we make it that long.

Chances are good that the winner will be Secretary Clinton. (Yes I know that no result is official until the vote by the Electoral College – but they're unlikely to overrule the voters.) Not a good result, but there is no good result. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has been disowned by many in his party. He may have attracted an army of supporters as a populist, but he's alienated the majority of American voters because of his rashness, lewdness, and, most of all, his ignorance. However nervous we Americans may be about him, it's likely that leaders of other countries would be unable to speak to him and negotiate meaningfully with him.

Not that Secretary Clinton is a great prize. Past performance – especially when considering her e-mails and Benghazi – suggests that she cannot be trusted (and, indeed, is not trusted) by her countrymen and women. Whatever transparency she promises should be taken as fantasy. Apart from her basic flaws she has had to make some commitments (not done publicly) to Senator Sanders; commitments that will probably bring her closer to socialism and a larger national debt, as well as an activist Supreme Court nominee. Her relationship to the current President is also no recommendation. He has brought us an imperial presidency, making decisions on his own that should be made by Congress. He has also left us with our highest national debt, and, notwithstanding a Nobel Prize based on the judges' hope for peace, he hasn't presided over a day when our country has not been at war. The Nobel Committee was rewarding him for not being President Bush. They were more involved in politics than in an honest search for a peacemaker. They blew it.

What's to be said for her? Why is she likely to win? Well, like the Nobel Committee, she'll be elected not for who she is, but who she isn't. She isn't Donald Trump. Neither can be trusted and both have the potential to be among our worst presidents (as does the incumbent who has weakened our country immeasurably in the eyes of the world) so the judgment of citizens is Clinton – no. But it's Trump – NO! However bad she may be, she represents less of a risk than her opponent. For better or worse she's likely to act rather than react. We may not approve of most of her choices, but they're more likely to be thought out by her and her advisers than controlled by her gut and guile. Those, however, are our prospects with Donald Trump.

In sports, there is a common cry to “wait till next year.” In this case we'll have to substitute “the next presidential election” for “next year.”

In the meanwhile, I recommend prayer.





October 13, 2016