President Obama was clearly right when he stated, in his impressive DNC speech, that Hillary Clinton is way more qualified than he was to serve as president. She’s so qualified that it sometimes seems she’s overqualified. But Obama was obviously wrong when stating that “there has never been a man or a woman more qualified” than her. One can think of a President or two who had more impressive careers than hers before assuming office. For instance, John Quincy Adams – son of a president, secretary of state, ambassador, Renaissance man. By the way, his being qualified did not save him from almost losing the election and from a mediocre presidency, to say the least, that ended after one term.
And there were other presidents who came ready with an impressive record: in the case of Herbert Hoover – one of the most impressive people ever to be elected – it ended with the colossal financial disaster of 1929. In the case of Dwight Eisenhower, the great general who led the allied forces to victory over Nazi Germany, it ended with a much better presidency. Clinton’s experience is impressive on the resume level: first lady, senator, secretary of state. It is also impressive on the symbolic level: Clinton is one of the most well-known women in the world. It’s a bit less impressive on the accomplishment level: she was a controversial first lady, an industrious senator who didn’t leave much of a mark, and a secretary of state without any major achievements.
It wasn’t all her fault, of course: accomplishments are the result of action, but also of circumstance. Eisenhower had the good fortune of being a general during the greatest war in history. Hoover had the bad fortune of being elected right before the economy crashed. Clinton entered the public sphere at a time when no transcendence was necessary. She also hasn’t transcended much in the current election cycle, which she will probably win, maybe even in a landslide.
The fact that America is choosing between an uninspired candidate and an anxiety-inducing candidate is disturbing, but it is not a strictly American phenomenon. The whole world is in the midst of a leadership crisis. Britain couldn’t find two candidates to compete for the PM position: Theresa May was chosen after being a de-facto single candidate. Francois Hollande was never too impressive, both to his voters and to outside spectators. Greece has a prime minister who can’t deliver on his inflated election promises. Israel is also going through some hardship on the leadership front. Binyamin Netanyahu has been enjoying a political ring empty of any charismatic opponents with a reasonable shot. Every country has its story, of course, but there are some similarities between them. Globalization, social media, the celebrated increase in transparency, the democratization of inner-party election mechanisms – all those have eroded the larger-than life stature of political leaders. All these also deter potential candidates from entering the political world.
What happened to the Americans is a malfunction, but it isn’t necessarily a one-time thing. The primary election system, which rolls from state to state, has generated some bogus, long-shot candidates before. Some would say that president Obama is one of them, but there are clearer cases of this than his. So now America needs to choose between two candidates it doesn’t want, but this isn’t the worst scenario. Four years from now, if the national mood doesn’t change, voters might face a choice not between a “Clinton” (a reasonable-albeit-uninspiring candidate) and a “Trump” (an unreasonable candidate), but between one party’s “Trump” and the other party’s “Trump.” This is not an impossible scenario, considering we are in a year in which Bernie Sanders actually had a chance, small as it was, of getting the presidency.
In that sense, the American election system is a trap. Once there are two bad candidates, and once America is forced to choose between them, it is a choice for the next four years. There are no discounts, no coalition that could fall apart, no crazy terms swiftly coming to an end, like Ehud Barak’s in the late 90s. Once America chooses Trump – a perplexing choice – or Clinton – a disappointing choice – it will be stuck with its choice. And we in Israel will be stuck with it too, until 2020, without any guarantee that there will be better options then. They might even be worse.
