It’s been said before and I’m going to say it again: the presidential election process is a ridiculous, wasteful, abusive–and even repulsive—ordeal for candidates and citizens alike. Probably the most visible part of the pageantry of our democracy, it’s a prolonged, dehumanizing, often humiliating assault on the dignity of those we’d like to be able to respect the most.
This time out, after months of winnowing, we end up with two of the most disliked candidates in history. To some extent the election ordeal itself is what makes our candidates unlikeable. Those with the thickest skin have survived to this point and it’s not a pretty picture.
Anyone who would put themselves through this humiliating process should be suspect–as emotionally numb, lacking regard for themselves—and perhaps likely to be lacking in regard for others, such as those they are elected to govern. Like a fraternity initiation, it shows, I suppose, how much you want it; but should you want it that badly? Is that amount of ambition a good thing? (Would the reader go through it? And if not, would you regard your unwillingness as a weakness or deficiency? Or just normal self-respect?)
It is argued that the election process is a valuable test of the candidates’ stamina and durability, which have become more of an issue than usual in this campaign, given the age of both candidates. That the election ordeal hasn’t killed them is, I suppose, a good sign their health is sound. But you could look at it as another sort of test: of how much s–t a candidate is willing to put up with. I’m not sure the winner in this sense is the one you want for president.
There may be a whole other sort of distingished citizen whom we’ll never get the chance to vote for because they wouldn’t dream of subjecting themselves to the election’s trial by ordeal.
No Comments