The Tribune

WITH the US presidential election less than a month away, the race for the White House is becoming uglier and nastier by the day.

Most recently, accusations against Donald Trump of derogatory comments about women and of a string of sexual assaults, as well as new damaging ‘Wikileaks’ revelations about his rival Hillary Clinton, are taking centre stage. Well before these latest developments we expressed in these columns our judgment that Mr Trump was an unsuitable person to be the Republican nominee. We now stand by that view.

Significantly, both Republican Party leaders and newspapers within the US are lining up to condemn a man who has shown himself to be a narcissistic demagogue, combining belligerence and rudeness with braggadocio and an unseemly stretching of the truth in his pronouncements on a host of topics.

To make matters worse, Mr Trump has also revealed profound ignorance on a range of pertinent issues and, in particular, a shallow grasp of international affairs. This may indicate an unwillingness to learn rather than an inability to do so, since he clearly possesses an innate intelligence which has enabled him to become a highly successful and extremely wealthy businessman and property developer.

He seems, however, to betray a lack of intellectual horsepower by invariably declining to engage in considered and rational argument and instead indulging in erratic behaviour involving endless gaffes while being thin-skinned and easily riled. One manifestation of this is his incessant and ill-considered ‘tweeting’ as a self-proclaimed counter-puncher. So the question remains whether his business background is compatible with politics at the highest level even though he saw off 16 experienced politicians to win the Republican nomination.

By contrast, his opponent seems to be well qualified for the US presidency as an experienced former Senator and Secretary of State and a seasoned political campaigner who has been part of the Washington scene for as long as most people can remember. Yet she is weighed down by serious baggage in the shape of scandals and policy failures involving accusations of dishonesty and corruption - for example, to name just a few, the private emails controversy, the Benghazi disaster, alleged wrongdoing of the family Clinton Foundation and, as a declared progressive politician, the hypocrisy of giving paid lectures to Wall Street bankers.

Leaving aside the candidates’ respective policies, the polls suggest that - basically - voters do not like either of them because both are deeply flawed and present a disillusioned US electorate, whose support for each seems to be resigned rather than fervent, with what amounts to a vote for the less bad option.

For Bahamians accustomed to relying on our giant neighbour for so many of our needs - tourism, trade and investment, security, communications, cultural exchanges and sport - admiration for the USA knows no bounds. So it is hard for us to believe that two fundamentally unworthy candidates should emerge from such a rich and varied nation of clever, experienced and charismatic people, many of whom are surely well qualified to take on the most important job in the land.

It was therefore instructive to watch the vice presidential debate last week between two political insiders with professional and personal reputations unsullied by scandal. Each was articulate and well informed and displayed a vast knowledge and experience of the workings of government. Although their exchanges were at times heated, they came across as thoughtful and fundamentally decent individuals.

Mike Pence, as Mr Trump’s running mate, was the smoother, more polished debater. Notably calm, measured and statesmanlike, he looked as though he should be the presidential candidate himself. The polls show Mrs Clinton in the lead, but to those who fear a Trump presidency it should be comforting to know that such an accomplished and experienced deputy will be at his side to curb his excesses and to offer wise counsel.

As the election on November 8 approaches, the choice appears to be between continuation of a politically progressive, anti-free market social and economic programme - with a bigger welfare state, more spending, higher taxes and more debt - and the alternative of economic growth, lower taxes and less regulation. Mr Trump regards himself as an agent for change for a nationwide populist movement which is against centralised power, globalisation and political correctness. Having struck a chord during the primaries with the grassroots of the electorate by pledging to put the nation first in everything from trade to immigration, and with the simple slogan of making America great again, he has also promised to stand up for ordinary people against special interests and the Washington political establishment.

Traditionally, the basis of American exceptionalism has been the opportunity to better oneself through talent, resolve, self-discipline and hard work. So the paternalism which gives rise to the welfare state has often been seen as alien to self-improvement and the puritan work ethic. But it remains to be seen whether such deeper considerations will occupy the minds of voters when faced with an unsatisfactory choice at the ballot box.

Despite the polls indicating a likely Clinton victory in this important election, could it be that the grassroots will spring a surprise in a similar way to the UK’s unexpected ‘Brexit’ vote some four months ago? The rest of the world awaits the outcome with a mix of keen anticipation and resigned exasperation.