The Disgust With The 2016 Presidential Race was avoidable with a little “homework”. Perhaps next time we should explore the alternatives before settling for a candidate, political party or a president.
The 2016 Presidential Election is days away but the nation has expressed its opinion already: 82% of Americans are disgusted with the 2016 Presidential Race.
That’s really sad that even before one of the candidates is officially elected as the Commander In Chief and without knowing yet which one, the majority is disheartened. It is true that the competition leading up to the Election Day was fierce; the presidential debates were unusually ugly and plenty of dirt on the nominees came to light during the race. It is true also that neither of the two leading candidates is controversy-free. The usual anticipation which has always accompanied presidential election, the enthusiasm, solidarity, dare I say: hope, isn’t there this time around.
The one thing that I personally find flabbergasting is that people are more likely to support the unwelcome known as opposed to more appealing unknown. Let me explain. I am not a supporter of Gary Johnson who in media interviews appeared uninformed and quite frankly, confused but I caught one in which he said two very profound things. One: most Americans are Libertarians but don’t know it. (That’s VERY true!) Two: if Mickey Mouse were running for president, he’d have won. (Also, very true.)
What’s the conclusion? America prefers the familiar, case in point: there are only two political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. (No, there aren’t.) There are only two candidates and we have to elect the lesser “evil”. (Again, not true.) The preceding was of course, a case for “Mickey Mouse”.
As for the case that most of us are Libertarians, consider the legalization of gay marriage, the changes in the “right to die” legislation, etc. The examples are many. We may not like the word; we may not be ready to admit that we are “liberal” or “libertarian” but facts speak for themselves.
What’s my point? We had choices, we didn’t bother exploring them. If we took the time to explore our options we could have had the opportunity to elect a president without pending lawsuits or investigations; a president we could all rally behind and take pride in; a president that would represent America to the world well; a president that would ignite our passion, solidarity and give us justified hope for a bright future.
The “cure” for the wide spread disgust among voters seems simple. Had we explored the available options earlier, we wouldn’t be disgusted today. Why so few did? Perhaps our understanding of the “qualifications” necessary to become a president of the United States is faulty. The President isn’t – and is not expected to be – “all-knowing” and doesn’t have to have prior experience. The president has all sorts of experts and advisors to lean on. The president has to be a leader whose views and convictions represent ours. A leader doesn’t need the knowledge expected of a manager. A leader has to have a vision for the country we can agree on. I’m not trying to sway anyone’s vote. I don’t have a political agenda. But just between you and I, what’s wrong with Green Party’s Presidential Candidate Jill Stein or her platform?
Her platform is difficult to disagree with. (It surely would appeal to the younger voters!) Jill Stein as an individual is beyond reproach. Oh yes, she is a woman. As much as I don’t believe that gender alone is – or should be – an advantage or disadvantage in a presidential race, Ms. Stein could have been the first female President of the United States and very likely a great one. One more thing, there would be no reason for anyone – except of a few billionaires, perhaps – to be disgusted, now.
Anything L.A. Magazine’s Editor Eve Elrich