Last Wednesday, first-year College student Milan Bharadwaj penned an op-ed titled “If you care about policy, Trump is the best candidate” — a lousy attempt to make a case for Donald Trump’s superiority over Hillary Clinton. While the policy arguments presented are at best misleading from an empirical standpoint, Bharadwaj’s dismissal of Trump’s racist, sexist and tribalist bigotry and public remarks as “meaningless” is deeply unsettling. Bharadwaj’s column fails to present a compelling argument for Trump’s superiority, and in no way discredits the argument that he is unfit to serve as our next president.
While urging his readers that policy proposals should be what determines their support for a candidate, Bharadwaj continuously attacks Hillary Clinton as “unlikeable” and “corrupt.” He apparently believes the words he uses to describe Clinton carry a higher value and meaning than “sexist” or “racist” — the supposedly “meaningless buzzwords” he chooses to dismiss in defending the Republican candidate’s superiority. Apart from this characterization of Clinton, the column also fails to distinguish Trump’s proposals with the Democratic nominee’s when talking about issues like terrorism, immigration and trade. These type of brush-offs and argumentative flaws turn Bharadwaj’s piece into a mere regurgitation of one-sided political opinions that fails to consider an important factor voters should consider when deciding who to cast their vote for: the candidate’s public image.
The evaluation of a presidential candidate should go beyond his policy proposals. People can have different stances on different key issues, but what should ultimately determine whether a candidate is electable as president is their capacity to maintain the dignity of the office and an appropriate public image, both at home and abroad. As President Richard Nixon once said, whoever holds the presidency of our country is going to be a figure that all the children of America will either look up to, or look down to. Voters owe it to younger generations to consider the type of personal values, behavior and manners a presidential hopeful promotes throughout the campaign trail.
Trump’s campaign trail has be widely characterized by sexist, racist, Islamophobic and xenophobic remarks and scandals. He has been publicly accused of sexual assault, recorded making disgustingly sexist and disrespectful remarks about women and made fun of the disabled during a campaign event. It’s clear why anyone trying to make a case for this man’s superiority (let alone his electability) would choose to dismiss these remarks as meaningless or irrelevant — when taking them into consideration, Trump is no better presidential candidate than any other average person would be.
Dismissing Trump’s public behavior and personal characteristics as “subjective nonsense” is merely expositional trickery meant to distract readers from the problematic characteristics of the presidential candidate. Bharadwaj is arguing that if we choose to ignore the bad things about his character, Trump is really not that bad — a laughable claim to be made when trying to make a case for Trump’s superiority over his opponent. He urges readers to have an open mind when considering whom to vote for, while maintaining a consistent bias and narrow-mindedness in discussing any of the other candidates’ qualifications.
Besides proposing to build a wall across our border with Mexico, Trump’s policies are neither original or inventive. It would therefore be unreasonable to argue Trump’s superiority and advantage as a candidate solely lie in his policy proposals. Bharadwaj also fails to explain how our nation’s future will benefit from Trump’s lack of experience in public service, his poor business track record and undiplomatic approach to disagreement and conflict. The continuous childish, uncivil, abusive and overall disagreeable behaviour he demonstrates, and that Bharadwaj decided to label as “subjective nonsense,” have been the only distinguishable contributions of the Republican candidate — all of which have been significantly harmful to our political and social atmospheres.
On the other hand, Clinton, regardless of what you may think of her policy, serves as an exemplary individual with a respectable intellect, an impressive devotion to public service, a seemingly impenetrable toughness and remarkable resilience — attributes we should admire in our politicians. Although recent scandals have cast doubts about her trustworthiness and distorted her public character, she clearly remains our best candidate for president. Her career-long commitment to children, women and families set her apart from Trump both personally and politically. I have no doubt Clinton would be a source of inspiration and admiration for our country as our next president.
The case for Trump’s superiority over Clinton’s is yet to be made. The presidential office has carried a character of respect and decency throughout our history, regardless of policy. One cannot dismiss a presidential hopeful’s public behavior as meaningless or irrelevant. Next week, voters should remember that policy is not the only factor that determines a successful presidency.
Carlos Lopez is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at c.lopez@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 5 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | November 20, 2024We need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
