The 2012 presidential election pits the celebrated first black president in American history against the energetic rhetorical former governor of Massachusetts as the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Both have made their attempts to attain storied reputations to support their own campaigns while America faces tough economic times jumbled with foreign policy and domestic issues. At a glance, the candidates may give a semblance of achieved politicians who would lead the country well. However, when digging deeper, it becomes quite clear that neither candidate has proven himself to be at the high leadership level that is required to bring America back into prosperous times.
The current president of the United States received a very special inauguration four Januarys ago as the country watched history being made. The disastrous eight years led by the George W. Bush administration were finally coming to an end, and the prospect of a new era filled with economic resurgence was on the rise. Then a year passed, and although much hadn’t been fixed, there was still hope for success. After another couple years, skeptics began to speak about the actual implications of Obama’s several stimulus plans and if workers would really benefit from the packages.
Such high expectations for the next presidential term were shattered by the slowly deteriorating faith and rising disappointment in the president’s abilities to lead the nation. Although Obama was left with a difficult economic situation during the start of his presidency, the implementation of his ideas were, for the time being, futile. After four years to begin to mend the broken system of his predecessor, Obama is now continually hit with criticisms of being unable to accomplish what he set out to do in his first term. Such leadership incompetency is a crucial issue in the looming election, and it shows that Obama’s 2012 nomination is almost solely due to the precedent of the incumbent almost always being allowed to run for a second term without significant opposition in his party’s primaries.
When examining Mitt Romney’s agenda, there is nothing worth seeing. Being the Republican governor of a state with a primarily Democratic legislature obviously had its problems. Many suggestions were vetoed by legislature in the name of party politics. Along with the difficulty of passing legislation, Romney’s stance on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage proved to be controversial and often condemned. Unfortunately, these ideas followed into the 2012 election race. Throughout this campaign, Romney’s flip-flopping nature on major issues has rendered him a fickle and unreliable candidate. For one, he has completely changed his position on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life to pro-choice once again within the span of 24 hours. Such shakiness on a controversial moral issue depicts the image of a presidential candidate who has no genuine regard for policies and is more focused on political gain in the campaign. Many Americans are desperate for another shot at an economic upsurge with a new president, but Romney filling that spot would spell a worse doom than what exists currently.
So, as the registered voters step up to the ballot boxes in less than a week, they should begin to ponder the thought that both of the main candidates in this election have established themselves as incompetent leaders lacking the sufficient abilities to guide a country in an economic crisis from the abyss to a state of stability. Voters must remove the murky cloud of party politics and ambiguity in order to make an informed decision on which candidate, if any, can really steer America in the right direction.
Krunal Patel is a sophomore electrical engineer at Drexel University and can be contacted at email@example.com