WASHINGTON – Here in the capital suburbs there seem to be no bumper stickers, no yard signs. Most people have stopped talking about the presidential election, except in hushed tones.
It is a joyless election. Few want it. If this were a play, we would want to plaster “canceled” on the posters, strike the set and reopen it with new performers.
November’s lead players, Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, are undesirable to the majority of American people, as shown by many voter surveys.
Trump is behaving as though he really does not wish to be president. Clinton has acted as though she never sought anything else for the past 16 years, except wealth.
These are sad words. But the campaign itself, as it has emerged, prompts deep disappointment, deep skepticism and much anxiety.
Last week, Trump indulged in another fit of self-destruction. After performing well in his Oct. 9 debate with Clinton, he wildly struck out against House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Republicans in general, claiming he doesn’t need them anymore. It was a crude imitation of Steve Martin in the film “The Jerk.”
Trump’s wasting three precious days to revenge himself on Ryan for telling GOP House members to concentrate on their own campaigns left even loyalist Dr. Ben Carson scratching his head.
At week’s end, Trump was evacuating his spleen on a squad of women who discovered they were inappropriately touched or kissed by him in past years. A session on an analyst’s couch might reveal why Trump hysterically squandered the last week before his final debate on trifles that he should have ignored.
Trump’s conduct matches his primary campaign. He won nomination with brutal smears on a dozen fine men, and a woman, any of whom would have defeated Clinton is a walk. Now, Trump howls over smears served up to him.
This is narcissism, squared.
Now, those living in flyover America – some of them “deplorables” and “irredeemables,” according to Clinton – wonder what or who can arrest the march of the new Democratic Party.
This is nothing resembling the Democratic Party of Presidents Johnson, Carter or Clinton. President Obama’s party, since his election to a second term, is now the engine for radical, revolutionary social change, unhindered presidential power, expanding government control by rule over the states, the welfare state, the sexual revolution and antagonism toward the police – be they white, black, brown or amber.
According recently released hacked emails, top Clinton aides revealed she “hates” ordinary Americans, and wants open borders and hemispheric free trade. Clinton harbors a well-documented antipathy toward people in uniform, including the military services.
Gone would be efforts to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that opened the gates to unlimited and secret campaign spending. There would be, under Clinton, no slowing of the campaign to punish Catholics and evangelicals for sanctions against contraception in their institutions. Clinton herself told a women’s group “deep-seated religious” beliefs against women’s reproductive services “must be changed.”
If you hope for a reversal of the mass media’s Orwellian doublespeak called politically correct thought, do not look to Clinton for any comfort. Look for more statism and closed-curtain government.
There are these courses open to the voter:
Take a chance and vote for one of the two major candidates; stay home; or, finally, cast a write-in and concentrate on down-ballot options. I am choosing the third.