Electing a president
On November 8, 2016 the American voters will elect the next President of the United States. Despite the fact that the three branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – are constitutionally linked and monitored through a system of checks and balances, the Presidency is a powerful force. He or she will have the opportunity to select persons for consideration for a wide range of appointments throughout the government. Currently there are 3,296 federal bench seats with 92 vacancies to be filled by the newly elected President. In addition are the appointments of 265 Ambassadors who will represent the United States in foreign countries around the world. Added to this list are an assortment of 300 federal appointments to be made. While all of these appointments are subject to Senate approval, the names put forward will set the tone and reflect the agenda of the President’s political party.
Additionally, our presidents have wide leverage when considering actions on important domestic and foreign issues. Military interventions account for some of the most consequential decisions made by a President. For example President Harry Truman was faced with the question of how best to end the war between the US and Japan. Should he continue the ground war and send more troops in or should he use a new untried weapon to force Japan to accept defeat and to surrender? As President he made the final call ordering the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Shortly thereafter the war in the Pacific ended.
In 1961 the Kennedy Administration decided to support 1,200 Cuban exiles in their effort to overthrow the Government of Fidel Castro. The plan was to invade the Bay of Pigs and with the help of Cuban citizenry and overthrow the Castro government. It was a disaster! Over 100 attackers were killed and 1,100 were captured. In response to the attack, Castro requested military assistance from the Soviet Union which included the building of missile sights aimed at the USA. In response President ordered the military to prepare for war which would include the possible use of nuclear weapons. Negotiations began between Moscow and Washington DC and went on for 13 days. It ended when Attorney General Robert Kennedy advised President Kennedy to accept a compromise offered by the Soviets. It worked and the crisis was ended. It was a narrow escape.
In contrast to responses taken by Truman and Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson decided in 1964 to expand the troop levels in Vietnam from16,000+ to 536,000 in 1968. By the end of the war in 1976 Americans had to admit they had lost the war at an horrific cost of 58,209 American military and personnel deaths and 170 billion dollars spent.
More recently, President George W Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq initiated an unraveling of the Middle East that shows no signs of ending after 13 years of death and destruction. Ostensibly this was to be a swift mission that Iraqis would welcome and would be paid for by the spoils of war: oil.
When you consider the waste in lives and monies in going to war to defeat a supposed enemy the stark reality should awaken anyone to the futility of such endeavors. Given the potential for such ill advised actions, the history and temperament of any candidate should be closely observed and evaluated.
While Donald Trump is seen by some as a successful businessman, being the President of the United States requires a unique set of skills and sensibilities and a working knowledge of the Constitution. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Donald Trump has no clear understanding of how the American Government operates. Mr Trump’s message calls for a one man show with no regard for advice and consent from the Congress or Judicial oversight. He fills the airways with seven absurd even nonsensical declarative statements and repeats them over and over. His claim that President Obama and Secretary Clinton founded ISIS lasted for 5 or 6 days and then he claimed he was being “sarcastic” not lying. Clearly he doesn’t know the difference between the two. A lie is a deliberate statement one knows to be untrue. Sarcasm is more subtle, intended to goad or insult another. Some say the inability to see the difference between them may indicate certain brain dysfunctions.
While Hillary stretches the truth like a rubber band when it comes to her personal life, what is disturbing about her and President Clinton is their total disregard for rules, believing they are not bound by them. They do what they want, flirt with the edge and lay the blame on “a vast right wing conspiracy” to deflect any charges or recriminations against them. But she does have a clear understanding of how our government works. As Senator and Secretary of State, she is experienced and knowledgeable. She is not a loose canon and can speak in terms that are understandable and reasoned.
So here we are in September of 2016 and essentially our choice is between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I find the choices less than optimal. I have many reservations regarding Hillary but more urgent considerations regarding the Donald’s unpredictability and his naivete regarding governance. I have been voting for 54 years. I have voted in California, Maine, Texas and the District of Columbia but I find it unbelievable that some people I know say they won’t vote in November because it won’t make a difference. They are wrong and dismissive of historical facts which the presidential election of 2000 between George Bush and Al Gore proved. Voting matters!
One thought on “Electing a president”
Comments are closed.
So — the choice on Nov. 8 is between a candidate who is secretive, blame-laying, rubber-band-stretching, experienced, intelligent and cunning versus one who is absolutely batshit crazy and clueless.
The biggest threat to the country is an electorate that is having the least bit of trouble making this decision.