by Mike Smith We find ourselves in an interesting predicament as we consider candidates for president in the closing weeks of what has been anything but an ordinary campaign. The majority of Americans dislike and distrust the nominees of both major political parties. Polls have consistently found that if voters had the opportunity to vote for either Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or “neither,” they would choose, “neither.” So, why do we lack enthusiasm for the two major party presidential candidates? Much of the blame can be directed at both Clinton and Trump.
Most Americans believe that Hillary Clinton represents the status quo. It’s a perception that has dogged her throughout this election process. In addition, she has shown herself to be cavalier about following rules or laws — the same rules or laws the rest of us must follow and labor under. And she is regularly embroiled in controversy, often self-created. This constant drama exhausts a nation.
On the other hand, Donald Trump’s outsider status has propelled him to the top of the Republican ticket. He represents change from the status quo by tapping into the anger and frustration felt by those who believe the system is rigged against them and stacked in favor of the wealthy and connected. But he has failed to grasp the intricacies of domestic and foreign policy, leaving many Americans baffled or frightened by his policies. He’s failed to unite the nation, or even his own political party. And he’s failed to embrace an image that is considered presidential. Indeed, Trump has been defined in this election as a chauvinist, a womanizer and a crude man, lacking the disposition necessary to be the leader of the free world.
This presidential election cycle began with Americans believing that no one was listening to them. Voters felt they were being ignored and left behind by a political and economic system dominated by wealthy interests bent on protecting the status quo. They wanted change. And yet, as we near the end of this election cycle, it is unlikely that the change Americans wanted is likely to occur.
In essence, we have a status quo candidate and we have an out-of-control candidate representing the two major political parties, and Americans are not satisfied with either choice. So what is the unsatisfied voter to do?
You’ve heard the notion that a presidential vote for anyone other than the two major party candidates is a wasted vote. If we subscribe to this logic, hasn’t the voter become a hostage to a system that has produced two flawed candidates? We all have a responsibility to vote; indeed, it’s a privilege, but we don’t have an obligation to vote solely for one of the two major party candidates. Doing so only stifles change and perpetuates the status quo. Candidates have a responsibility, too, and that is to convince voters to vote for them. And political parties must find ways to nominate qualified and appealing candidates.
If this election is a harbinger of presidential elections to come, we should be worried about the future of our political process and demand from our political parties a change. If winning a future election is based on a strategy of delegitimizing a presidential candidate, or even an elected president, we are destined to undermine the stability of our democracy.
The bottom line: It’s OK to recognize all the choices before you in this presidential election and not just the major political party candidates. Your vote should be for the person you believe will be able to deliver the progress and change you wish to see, and not for the candidate that is least offensive.
Mike Smith is host of the radio program, “Open Mike with Mike Smith,” on WDEV 550 AM and 96.1, 96.5, 98.3 and 101.9 FM. He is also a political analyst for WCAX-TV and WVMT radio and is a regular contributor to Vermont Business Magazine, The Times Argus and Rutland Herald. He was the secretary of administration and secretary of human services under former Governor Jim Douglas.