The Race to the Bottom

The race to the bottom in this election seems to be in full swing this week.  Neither candidate is talking positively about what their approaches would be to addressing the key needs in the country, nor spending any time explaining why and how their policies would work to be effective in delivering the improvements we need in areas like economic growth, job creation, and deficit reduction.

Both candidates are focused on painting the dark, negative outcomes that could result if their opponent is elected.  The objective seems to be to create a high level of fear about the possible outcomes that would result from the election of the other candidate so that the public is motivated to vote for them instead of their opponent.

The fact that both candidates are resorting to this negative, fear-based messaging is nothing less than a scar on our democracy and the spirit of our country.  It will not likely set the stage for a period of positive change for the country going forward, no matter which candidate wins the election.  Instead of exhibiting statesman-like leadership to minimize the level of divisiveness and build a sense of unity in the country, this will almost certainly deepen the existing divides in our country today.  And it will almost certainly lead to even more dysfunction and deliberate gridlock of any policies by whichever candidate and party wins the election.   

Donald Trump tells his supporters that if Hillary Clinton is elected, they will lose their gun rights … that she will appoint Justices to repeal the Second Amendment.  Then he states in language which would be too easy to misinterpret by a small but radical element of his supporters, “there’s nothing that can be done if she wins, unless the second amendment people do something”. 

The issue is not what he meant, it’s what his lack of care in what he says and how he says it could lead to … how this might be interpreted by a small group of his listeners as an urging to take violent action against Hillary Clinton or other public officials who support her if she should get elected, in order to protect their Second Amendment rights.

For her part, Hillary Clinton speaks about Donald Trump being unfit to serve as Commander in Chief, and “someone like him cannot be given access to our nuclear codes”.  So if he wins, what might a small but radical element of her supporters feel is the only course of action to “save the country”?

This exaggerated rhetoric should be carefully avoided by a President and Presidential candidates. They have to take care with what they say to ensure their comments can’t be misconstrued as endorsing violence against the members of the other party.  This is the too likely outcome of campaign rhetoric that paints the other candidate and the other party as being “evil”, “anti-American” or “destroying of our society and Constitution”.  That language can be misconstrued as justification for “revolution” if one side doesn’t get the outcome they believe is “critical” to our future. 

                                                                                                                                                

Of course, it is a certain outcome of the election that one of the two candidates is going to lose.  What kind of a country are these two “leaders” setting the stage for following the election with such highly negative messaging?  Shouldn’t true national leaders be concerned at least a bit on the national condition for the 4 years after the election, as they are on their own election?  Wouldn’t it make sense to focus messaging about their candidacy based on their visions for America and the policies for making that vision a reality?   Would it not be better for the country’s immediate future to focus the messaging about the vision and policy choices in this election, rather than stoking the fear of negative consequences?   Will the losing candidate and party be willing to encouraging the country to unite to help make the new President a success in leading the whole country?  And if not, what do we have to look forward to for the following 4 years?

Are we as an electorate willing to accept leaders who seem to believe that “the end justifies the means”?  One can only hope that perhaps the electorate will perform better than our leaders.  And that the well-being of the country in general, and specifically the extent to which we can continue striving to be “one nation … indivisible”, which we confirm each time we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, can provide the incentive for more positive messaging for the balance of this campaign. 

If you are a person who shares these concerns, I hope you won’t choose to remain silent, that you might reach out to the candidates you support and suggest that you want the negative messaging to end, and want to hear positive messages about their vision and policies if they want your continued support.