Later this month, our country will be going to the polls and choosing the next leader of the United States. The field of candidates can be best described as underwhelming. The Republican Party’s radical choice in Donald Trump is unreasonable, irrational and unpredictable. The Democratic Party chose Hillary Clinton, who has years of baggage and cringeworthy moments which have been, and will continue to be, circulated by the right wing to try to unseat her current dominance in the race. And while the Libertarian Party had substantial momentum for a third party in the slow month of September, nominee Gary Johnson has effectively erased all chance of an upset with his alarming lapses of knowledge regarding global issues. Since one of these nominees is going to be our next Commander-in-Chief, we have to select the candidate who has the best judgment, knowledge, and plan for our country. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate in the race with a reasonable plan for this nation’s future.
Clinton’s first strength is her domestic policy. Republicans and Democrats alike have been in a cycle of hypocritically promising both tax and spending cuts while simultaneously promising drastic increases in spending to the military and social services. Now, it’s blatantly obvious that you can’t shrink the national budget and pay for more services without going into debt, and Clinton’s pragmatic and reasonable plans for our government’s budget have been the only ones in the election cycle to be fiscally responsible. Her plans to spend on renewable energy and infrastructure are expenditures which will over time result in a government profit, and the rest of her policies, including replenishing social security funds, will be met by appropriate increases to corporate tax rates and will also be compensated for by ending tax loopholes for the very wealthy. It’s about time we stop hoping that the budget deficit is going to be cut by empty promises and we elect a leader with a legitimate plan.
Clinton’s next important attribute is her plan for the underprivileged in this country. Poor Americans have been taking blows to their livelihoods for the past 20 years. Companies have outsourced labor, communities have gotten weaker and more unsafe, and the quality of education and employment in traditional working-class areas has been in decline. While Trump has kept the plight of the working class at the forefront of his campaign, his shocking ignorance and negative misinterpretations of their condition is far from laudable. Clinton, on the other hand, from going undercover in schools in impoverished regions of Arkansas to scope out and end segregation and insufficient education standards, to fighting for the Children’s Health Insurance Program to provide millions of children in poverty with access to health care, has demonstrated throughout her professional career that she cares about all segments of society and that she’s committed to making a positive change for those in poverty. Additionally, Clinton provides a solid plan to bring better jobs to communities. In outlining her “Make it in America” plan, which highlights significant tax incentives to companies who stay and manufacture in the United States, and by promising infrastructure renovations in impoverished communities nationwide, Clinton has made it clear that the working class would have increased prospects under her presidency. Why should we choose a candidate whose only promise to the poor is to “Make America Great Again” when there is a choice with a track record of service for the working class and a legitimate plan to broaden their opportunities?
The last, and perhaps most important, case for Clinton in the election cycle is that this election is less about politics and policies and more about the moral values of the nation. Yes, Clinton has her shortcomings and is far from a perfect candidate. However, when our only other option is a man who is serially dishonest, crude, and disparaging to every segment of American society, and who has outlined radically unconstitutional policies, we have to make the right choice. In choosing Hillary Clinton this election, we will have elected a rational, reasonable and sane candidate who will fulfill the duties of her office. She has proven throughout her career that she embodies each of these qualities, and if you aren’t convinced by her comprehensive domestic policy, track record on helping the poor, sound foreign policies, or past experience, then you should still be supporting Clinton simply because she is not reckless or megalomaniacal.
The realization that presidential politics has gone from “Ask what you can do for your country” to “[Mexico is] not sending their best… they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists,” in a span of 60 years is a shocking and depressing reality. Sure, our country has undergone huge economic and ideological changes in this time, but we are fundamentally the same optimistic, hardworking, and forward-thinking people. When we look back at this election in 20 years, we should look back at it as a time in which the state of our country was distorted by a candidate, in which a candidate insulted and made low blows at his opponents, and in which he gave ridiculous and unserious solutions to our nation’s problems. But we should also remember it as a year in which we rejected this cynical view of our nation in favor of a candidate who stood for and represented the unity and strength that is and always will be abundant in our country.