Well, I have been suffering from election fatigue for several months now. It’s not that I’m actively promoting or "stumping" for a particular candidate, but rather from the election stories and news saturating the media (as always every four years), let alone the derogatory, malicious and abhorrent nature of the campaigns. And so for some antidote and temporary relief to my impairment, I have been writing some more philosophical, humorous and sarcastic posts about the election.
The underlying and nagging question that burdens and bothers most people, and certainly belies this whole political malady is this: “Are Trump and Clinton the best that America has to offer?” This is the country of the most famous and greatest political heroes and figures in modern history. This is the country of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Reagan, etc. etc., for crying out loud. I understand that politicians are not always held to the highest of moral, honorable or trustworthy standards, but c’mon, I’m sure we can do a lot better than Trump and Clinton. Or are these the only types of political aspirants we have left in America? Or does money - as what most outsiders ascribe to many of America’s problems - have a role in this seeming demise of an American tradition?
Well, we may never have satisfactory answers to these queries. Therefore, let tomorrow’s election be, as it may, and let us (“we the people”) swallow the accountability pill after. For the time being, let me tackle the bull by the horns and be “forthright” about my position and opinion.
For me, Clinton and Trump are on an even par as far as their different, yet equally weighed, flaws. In other words, to use a familiar cliche, ad nauseam, we have a kettle and a pot - different in shapes yet the same and equal in their smutches. Hence, flaws aside, and with everything being equal, let me start with a “clean slate” considering their very basic qualifications on who will better serve as President.
And so let me use my own methodology that will include an analogy and a philosophy to delineate and delimit the two, thereby suggesting and hinting at the better candidate (or to use a common expression being used for this election, “the lesser of the two evils”) for President.
First an analogy:
A man was admitted to the hospital for chest pains. The ER staff determined that he has to have an open heart surgery immediately. The only heart surgeon available had a checkered past as far as his reputation and experience. There was only one other doctor available who was a general practitioner (GP). The whole hospital staff had to vote on who should operate on the patient, who was also asked for his opinion. Everyone voted for the heart surgeon.
And the philosophy:
This is Plato’s definition of justice as found in his famous work, “The Republic”. Justice is necessary in a state in order for it to function properly. And to achieve justice, therefore, is to promote the principle "that one man [or woman] should practice one thing only and that the thing to which his [her] nature was best adopted". “Justice is thus a sort of specialization. It is simply the will to fulfill the duties of one’s station and not to meddle with the duties of another station.”
Considering most things about the two main candidates (again, sans their flaws), as well as the fact that the President is a political office, therefore, in principle, may the one better “suited and specialized” for political office win. Yep, like the heart surgeon who, despite his past, was more suited and specialized for heart surgery, and not the GP.