Presently we have front-runner presidential candidates enjoying comfortable leads for their parties’ nominations. Notwithstanding their different dogma, are they really that different?
Both play by their own rules and do as they please. Both in the top 1 percent of the economic food chain, they strike populist tones by railing against Wall Street and the financial elite but have long, cozy histories with the financial/investment banking industry.
Both recently flip-flopped on issues when it was politically expedient. Going back decades, both have had significant credibility and/or ethical problems. When confronted with something uncomfortable, rather than addressing the issue head on both obfuscate by deflecting, redirecting, and attacking or ridiculing those raising the issue. Both hubristically engage in fear-mongering, alluding to how much worse off we will be if they’re not elected.
I’m not endorsing any candidate or party. Citizens of both parties don’t have to settle for any candidate just because they appear to be the inevitable front-runner.
If either of these divisive, polarizing demagogues becomes president, their respective legions of enemies won’t permit anything less than more of the feckless gridlock we’ve come to expect from Washington. We all deserve better.