No doubt, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have their enthusiastic advocates. No doubt, some see either Clinton or Trump as a great, future president. Equally, this election is distinguished (if that is the word) by the very high, in fact unprecedentedly high, negatives that each candidate measures in the polls.
One recent poll had 35% of the electorate not having positive views of either candidate. By contrast, in 1984, that number was 3%; in 1992, it was 9%. What a vast difference from today. Another poll had 64% of Trump supporters as mainly anti-Clinton; and 47% of Clinton supporters as mainly anti-Trump. Lest you think that all of the remainder of the voters on either side has “pro” views of their candidate, think again.
We do not remember a presidential election with as many “negatives” as this one. Alas, it is not hard to see why.
Trump seems to find it constitutionally difficult to say anything nice about Muslims and Mexicans. Clinton seems to find it impossible to face the corruption that her selection of a personal server for her government email represents.
Trump one month says he is neutral on Israel and the next month says he’s more pro-Israel than anyone. Clinton in one political climate says that the TPP is the best trade agreement we’eve ever had, and in another political climate (today) says she’s dead set against it.
Trump ran “Trump University,” plagued, it certainly seems, by deceptive practices — with the shameful prospect of a sitting president of the US up for adjudication in a court of law. Clinton now says that, to avoid ethical conflicts of interest, she and her husband (but not her daughter) would sever all ties with the Clinton Foundation, blithely bypassing the point that the very same conflict of interest already existed for the four years she was Secretary of State.
Trump can condemn one instance of an anti-Semitic remark coming from one of his supporters or operatives no sooner than another such anti-Semitic remark emerges from still another supporter or operative. Clinton can condemn one socialist policy after another of Bernie Sanders no sooner than she embraces many of them once she needs his supporters.
These and many other lugubrious facts account for those who register on the “negative” side of the polls. No doubt, advocates of both Clinton and Trump stack these negatives very differently, seeing one candidate’s negatives as far more disqualifyiing than the other’s.
For those not buoyed by the prospect of voting for the decidedly better of two unpalatable choices, is the Libertarian Party candidate an alternative? All else aside, Gary Johnson is widely criticized within his own party for having violated the Libertarian orthodoxy against — gasp! — drivers’ licenses. We don’t see a reasonable political ideology here. And the Green Party? It is notoriously and loudly anti-Israel, favoring BDS, i.e., the end of Jewish self-determination. We don’t see a reasonable political ideology here.
Copyright © 2016 by the Intermountain Jewish News
