Assessing politicians based on morality

But here I use the term to mean a fairly universal sense of rightness and wrongness crossing cultures that touches on a conventional humanity which finds lying, cheating and dissembling and the like, in their varied embodiments, reprehensible, and self-respect, honesty and fair play and such, also in their widest application, traits to applaud.

Against this broad definition, how does one reconcile the morality of Hillary Clinton’s alleged “digging up dirt” on or intimidating her husband’s sexually abused victims with her championing of women’s rights on the platform? How honest is her claim of acting in the interests of African-Americans throughout her tenure when the condition of this group in the inner cities like Chicago has shown no significant change, with violence, drug use and unemployment being the norm? How does one measure her claims to excellent leadership with the disaster of regime change in places like Iraq and Libya, creating the void, according to some, that led to growth of ISIS, and the tragedy of Benghazi? As to Trump, how does one assess his claimed genius in exploiting the tax system to his advantage as against the ethics of such behaviour even though it may have been legal? And do we accept his explanation of his lewd comments as mere “locker room talk” or do we see it as a symptom of a wider misogynistic trait in his character inconsistent with the role of President as Clinton would have us believe? Is there merit in his call for extreme vetting of immigrants coming from countries where terrorists abound or is he being bigoted and racist? Politicians like these wanting our votes often try to make their promises look as attractive as possible and they often succeed with all the money and means at their disposal to do so. But aren’t we as voters obliged to try and look beneath the surface and see what lies beneath the pretty pictures presented and ask questions about whether our leaders possess the moral authority to make the claims they make? Out of this may come an informed choice based on a sense of rightness and wrongness of their actions, but does the average voter often do that? In Trinidad no one questions the moral authority of Opposition politicians who have slowly legitimised their position in the governance structure of this country even though the perception of rampant corruption during their tenure hangs over their heads. But we are Third World and that is to be expected.

Shouldn’t the greatest country in the world do better? To use one example of many, Latinos and African Americans seem bent on voting for Clinton out of a sense that Trump is out to get them. But shouldn’t the question be asked whether there is some merit in what Trump is saying in terms of the dangers of unfettered immigration and, correspondingly, whether Clinton is the refuge they seem to think she is, considering the continuing depressed condition of minorities during Obama’s tenure and, by extension, Clinton’s?

DR ERROL BENJAMIN Port-of-Spain