636008268690117515-clintontrump

Like a boxing match, in this political climate, punches are being thrown… a left hook in the form a past failure, a right uppercut from something said way back when.

Ultimately, one candidate will prevail as the winner; the other will face some degree of humiliation.  Imagine earning such a degree… no university can grant it; what courage these two have, and the many who’ve run the race with them.  Who wants to receive so much attention and be simultaneously loved and hated by so many?

Nonetheless, the punches will only be as strong as the weight “we the people” give them.  Hundreds of punches have been thrown… which will land?  Will they result in a K.O.?

In choosing a candidate, both having failures, as everyone does, though few will ever have them so publicly paraded, which failures indicate an inferior ability to lead?  Setting all the political issues aside, if but for a moment, which candidate has shown the strongest work ethic?  How have they performed in the roles they’ve played?  Looking at their Curriculum Vitae, which one shows the most promise as a potential employee?

While running for office, you can say whatever you want to attract a certain number of voters.  While sizing up these contenders, can you discern whether their motive stems from a true conviction, rooted in some higher principle?  If so, is there one principle that shines forth above the rest?

Is not the primary role of our government to preserve and defend our God given rights… rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  Of these three, have they already been arranged in order of importance, providentially?  What exceptions do the candidates make, if any?  If neither defend these rights in total, should the compromise one makes suggest they’re a better candidate than the one who compromises more or dismisses the issue altogether?   If so, what is the principle underlying their decision?  Assuming both candidates desire to defend these rights equally, and in order of importance, do their words match up with their deeds?  If so, what remains to determine the better candidate?

What about their family?  What values are represented?  Is not the family the nucleus of society?  What can we gleam about the character of these candidates based on their family life?  Do they stick to their commitments even when the going gets tough, even in the midst of infidelity?  How do they view the opposite sex with respect to authentic masculinity and femininity?  Do they lead by exemplifying good character?  Are either candidates using or addicted to controlled substances?  Or, do they say or do things suggesting they’re going through periods of euphoria or are out of touch with reality or basic human suffering?  Do they show empathy?

If another war begins, which is best going to rally the allies and persuade the enemy towards peace?  What principles will guide that leader?  Which candidate is going to uphold and defend standards of human decency in the midst warfare?  Is not the use of torture reprehensible?  Has either shown some degree of love for the enemy, a love that might limit the use of dishonorable technology, technologies that can kill with little regard for civilian life or fail to uphold the traditional means through which men gain valor and show courage?

Putting aside all levity, which can you trust?  If you believe that neither are trustworthy, what can you do but pray and work for something better?  Perhaps a new system of government in the United States that replaces the office of the president would be appropriate, a system with greater subsidiarity, where collective votes of several entities from each state determine matters of national importance, in cooperation with Congress and the Supreme Court?

 

Image source:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/07/analysis-primaries-clinton-trump-three-tasks-president/85396090/

Advertisements