By Tommy Kelleher
Contributing Writer
Aaron Chelliah
Opinion Editor
Presently, the candidates vying for frontrunner positions in the 2016 presidential campaign do not represent or possess the qualities necessary to bring about any tangible change for the bulk of the American people.
The leading candidates in next year’s presidential race include two well established, dynastic politicians, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, as well as Rand Paul, a Libertarian who only recently entered the political arena. The Tea Party also has a large stake in the upcoming election with candidates Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee making substantial impacts on an unsatisfied American population.
Hillary Clinton, prominent Democratic candidate and successor of the Clinton legacy, does not bring any specific or unique views into the presidential race, nor will she likely push for any unique reforms. Her husband is well known for his moderacy and compromising nature, but Hillary does not even have a distinct ideology from which she can cede or compromise.
New York Senator Charles Schumer called Clinton the most opaque and insincere person you’ll meet in your life. His observation corresponds to the recent scandal regarding a private email she used as secretary of state, and her tendency to use vague language to get away with modifying her beliefs. According to the Economist, even as she affirms the value of free trade, she has also condemned business’ control over American jobs.
On a more, albeit slightly more, conservative platform, Jeb Bush has not yet announced his candidacy, but Time Magazine and many others predict he will run. Bush is an establishment conservative, favoring business and hands-off economics as his main points rather than Tea Party ideologies.
Bush exemplifies the potentially troublesome growth of political dynasties, and he comes bearing the same poisoned fruits of trickle-down economics that former President Ronald Reagan offered to an unassuming America years ago. If the nation wishes to change its position for the better, it will not come from a belittled sibling’s rehashing of debunked economic theories.
But Bush also has a set of socially conservative beliefs to go along with his fiscally conservative ones, including support of gun owners’ rights. Along with Clinton, the former governor represents the established political status quo, consisting of an extremely divided and partisan approach, as compared to a more dynamic, compromise-oriented ideology.
Paul, however, is the antithesis of his two dynastic opponents. As a (now retired) optometrist, Paul truly embodies the average, politically underdeveloped American, albeit one who has decided to cast his name into the hat. His background makes him at once a romantic and an inevitable loser, because in an age where big money and big politics reign supreme, a political ideology as unique as his own renders him an ineffective agent of change for the upcoming 2016 elections.
When beginning his campaign, Paul shared his ideas about how the U.S. government could cut taxes, reduce debt and continue funding programs through the establishment of economic freedom zones. Where Bush and Clinton have unoriginal campaign platforms, Paul possesses the unchecked hubris to craft fiscal solutions that ignore reality and institutional history.
In summation, the upcoming election only offers Americans a pair of political dynasties bent on maintaining the status quo and fringe ideologues that would likely be ineffective executives even if they could reach the White House.
Leave a Reply