This election brings little hope, but only one right choice

It is difficult to write about American politics during this presidential campaign season because the election process represents the best tradition in our republican form of government and, quite frankly, this time around it has made being American an embarrassment.

{mosads}It is pointless to summarize the deficiencies of either or both principal candidates. The stories are too widespread and picking and choosing simply misses the point. It isn’t even worthwhile citing the deficiencies in media coverage, the lack of perspective, the focus on the incendiary or the absence of responsible journalism. The naivete of the electorate doesn’t warrant further comment either.

The despondency of thoughtful Americans is oppressive. In the midst of a 15-year war, in the presence of income inequality that is crippling economic progress, mired in a political system that has empowered greed and selfishness, a compromised infrastructure, the rise of autocratic systems to challenge our world leadership, a resilient and pervasive racism, the obsession of religious intolerance and its imposition of standards on behavior, the pervasive and endemic fascination with violence whether it be manifest in gun advocacies’ obsession with protection from an oppressive government or the entertainment industry that cannot move away from violence and evil, school systems that don’t educate and financially cripple those it does produce, stranded in an environment that is deteriorating while we watch — in the midst of all this, we are asked to choose between these two people?

For those of a liberal mindset, we have already lost an historic opportunity with President Obama because of his foolish bipartisan efforts, his timidity, his paranoia over information control and his militarism in “responsibly prosecuting our role in the world,” as the thought goes. We will again miss the opportunity in this cycle because Democrats have made the choice of a candidate who offends as many as she attracts and, in doing so, will be responsible for a paramount failure: the failure to secure a majority in the House and Senate. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a candidate whose judgment has been measured over time and found to be faulty, a conviction that is reinforced almost every day with poor choices with campaigning, messaging and faulty responses.

These are not my conclusions; they are the judgment of professional investors. One need only focus on the action in the gambling arena of Wall Street, where the bets are clear. Clinton will win the election and the Republicans will control Congress and that is just fine, because it preserves the status quo and the status quo is exactly what they want. The status quo embodies a set of laws and policies that have brought us to where we are and that’s OK.

Additional clarity can be garnered from the policy discussion surrounding the Federal Reserve and its latest flirtation with raising interest rates. The fact that increased rates might stifle the once-in-a-generation opportunity to squeeze corporations into making substantive pay raises seems to have eluded even Fed Chair Janet Yellen, the people’s choice, because pay raises could cause inflation and even thought that hasn’t been the case for the past eight years, the possibility would disrupt the tradition of anticipating change and erring on the side of caution (unless you are former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and then you applaud exuberance — but not irrational exuberance).

While the media dither about with an unexplained fascination with trivia — Clinton’s description of GOP nominee Donald Trump’s supporters as “deplorable,” Trump condoning violence at his rallies, Clinton’s latest cover-up, Trump’s health records, Trump’s tax records and what they might show that we don’t already know, the possibility of Clinton being influenced by donors to the Clinton Foundation — the key questions remain out of focus: How will either candidate govern and what type of judgment will he or she bring to the Oval Office?

The answers are there. Perhaps the media are as frightened by the answers and so skirting or avoidance is really the only rational response. These two candidates are not good choices for this country. Trump has demonstrated an alarming mindset and temperament and Clinton is the quintessential establishment politician whose judgment and candor have been found wanting. What is worse is that the public has demonstrated revulsion of politics as usual, but has no credible outlet or voice other than anger.

It is pointless to engage in the perennial handwringing about the limitations of the two-party system. We are faced with a binary choice until and unless there is an alternative. For the moment, there is a strong urge to turn away in disgust, which has to be overcome because there are consequences. A Republican presidency with a Republican majority in both houses will insure economic volatility, a crippling diminution of the social and financial safety networks in place, continued support for economic inequality and favoritism shown toward the wealthy, the undue influence of corporations over legislation, ill-advised responses to foreign affairs, a continuation of the conservatism of the court system, and a hopeless oblivion when it comes to the environment.

In voting for Clinton, it is absolutely clear that there will be cronyism, favors, limited access, self-aggrandizement, a willful oblivion to pre-election promises, unwanted and unwarranted compromises with a belligerent Congress, and a provocative and aggressive foreign policy style — but at least the Oval Office will not only be about the ways of the establishment; at least there will be a decent Supreme Court nominee and a concern demonstrated for the education of our children, the integrity of the environment, the need for infrastructure investment, the promotion of science and research, measures takens to tackle the more egregious elements of income inequality.

You can call that half a loaf, but as the saying goes …

Russell is managing director of Cove Hill Advisory Services.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.