Sorry group of candidates can lead to depression
On Aug. 20, 1960, I arrived in South Florida. The election between John F. Kennedy and RichardNixonwas two months away.
At that point, many recent arrivals in Cuba — me included— thought that ousting the Castro regime would come with the aid of theUnited States. Thatmade the November1960 elections that much more interesting.
Soonwewere to realize theUnited States could not give us democracy back in Cuba. It dawned on me slowly that despite Cuba’s ties with the Soviet Union, itwas up to Cubans to regain control of their country.
The fact that I amwriting this column inMarch 2016 inmy South Florida home is proofwe have not been able to achieve our goal.
Forme, however, the 1960 election gave me a taste of the democratic process. I became addicted to elections, local or national— mainly national. Each four-year period brought a new slate of candidates. Somewere good, somewere bad and somewere just there.
Candidates lured me to change parties more then once. I have been a registered Democratic voter, a registered Republican voter and an Independent. Iwent for the candidates, not for the party.
In these 56 years I have seen good candidates, bad candidates and awful candidates. But never before this year have I seen a more deplorable slate of candidates.
Letme start with the one making the most noise— Donald Trump. Iwould not vote for Trump if hewere the last and only candidate left. His pompous and vociferous campaign style turnsme off. I cannot say Trump is a fascist or anything like that. What I can say is he is an authoritarian man whose main claim to fame is his slogan: “Make America great again.”
His pledge to build awall between Mexico and theUnited States is absurd, and his assertion he will makeMexico pay for it is more absurd. Never in the years I have closely followed American presidential elections have I found a more narcissistic, egotistical candidate. One who, to this day, believes he knows more about everything than anybody else. His brain leads his team of advisers.
Sen. Ted Cruz is just a shade less offensive than Trump. The insults the two men have made in the lastweek are not worthy of any presidential candidate. They are both unworthy of the job they seek.
Cruz and Trump have pledged to close the border and deport undocumentedworkers living in theUnited States. They do not say that more undocumentedworkers are going back to their home countries than the ones who are coming in. Still, itwould be quite a task, deporting 11 million or 12 million people.
And I amnot satisfied anchor babies born in theUnited States should not be given citizenship. They are born here and thus they are American citizens. That is what the Constitution says, period.
OhioGov. John Kasich is the least offensive Republican candidate. But Kasich has little chance of becoming his party’s nominee.
On the Democratic side, I like the public persona of Sen. Bernie Sanders. I can understandwhy the millennial voter supports him. He is promising them a free college education, but does not outline howmuch thatwould cost the rest of the nation’s residents. And coming fromCuba, I cannot seemyself backing a socialist candidate running for president.
Last but not least, is Hillary Clinton. She is probably the least offensive candidate left in the race. But I share with the majority of American voters the distrust they have of the former secretary of state.
Clinton may not have answered the question of what shewould do if the current investigation by the FBI leads to an indictment. But supporting a candidate under investigation by the FBI is notmy idea of a clear choice.
If this column sounds depressing, it is, because I amdepressed at our choices for president this year. Over the last 56 yearswe have had some good candidates, many mediocre ones, and a few that could compete with those running this year in being inept.
But never, I repeat never, have I had to choose between such a sorry group of candidates.
Guillermo I. Martinez lives in South Florida. guimar123@gmail.com