Why a Third Party Candidate is not better than Clinton

The Basics

Article II of the Constitution outlines three primary responsibilities for the office of President of the United States:

1) Head of State and Diplomat in Chief.

2) Head of Government.

3) Commander in Chief.

There are other responsibilities of the president but generally speaking the president's responsibilities fall under one of the three categories above. Let us dive deeper into each category to reveal even more reasons why Trump should not go within 1,000 proverbial miles of the Oval Office and why Clinton far exceeds both Trump and third party candidates in relevant experience for the job.

(Although there are various third party candidates, for sake of simplicity just Gary Johnson will be included here given that he has the most exposure out of the third party candidates, but the points from this post will apply to all third party candidates).

Head of State and Diplomat in Chief

The President of the United States is the nation's highest representative to the world. The president interacts with other heads of state and other foreign dignitaries on the world stage. The diplomatic arena has always by its nature been one where decorum and respect are currency. But beyond simply representing the United States in this arena and the ceremonial duties it encompasses the president is also vested with powers that relate to America's relations with the rest of the world, foremost amongst those powers being the ability to negotiate and sign treaties.

By virtue of the treaty making power, the president will work with their counterparts across the globe in defining international law. Such international law will govern many facets of life from trade to military deployment to the ease of international travel.

Head of Government

Unlike other governmental systems, the President of the United States is not just a ceremonial office but a political one as well. The President doubles as the head of state and the head of national the government. In this latter role they are at the head of the executive branch of the federal government. They oversee the entire federal bureaucracy, appoints all cabinet positions and other senior leaders in the federal bureaucracy and have the power of executive orders. In addition, they also appoint supreme court justices and other federal judges

In addition to being the boss of the massive entity that carries out federal law, being the head of government also involves working with the legislative branch of the federal government - the congress. The president works with the congressional leadership of both parties and seeks to influence the agenda of congress and has veto power over legislation.

Congress is a complex entity that operates within the context of with political parties, chambers, different rules for each chamber, different leadership for each chamber, committees and sub committees in each chamber with their own leadership and a lot of concern for re-election among its membership.

Commander in Chief

The President of the United States leads the armed forces of the nation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff may specialize in the abilities and tactics of the various armed forces and the Secretary of Defense may have authority, direction and control over the defense network but the president decides when and how they are used, including, heaven forbid, the use of nuclear weapons.

The command of the most powerful force the earth has ever known is given to the winner of the presidential election. The president is a civilian and this was by design as a check on military power in the governance of the nation. The winner of the presidential election when sworn into office becomes "Commander in Chief" (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1).

With the basic understanding outlined above, let us now examine the experience each candidate brings to the table as it relates to these responsibilities of the presidency.

The Candidates' Experience Relating to Head of State and Diplomat in Chief

Trump

Donald Trump has zero diplomatic experience nor is his temperament and skill suited for diplomacy. Outside of zero related job experience, as the highest representative and symbol of America, his remarks about women, Mexicans, people of African descent and other minority groups would be an insult to the dignity of the office and has already garnered a lack of respect from counterparts around the world. Need a refresher? Here are some gems:

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.” – Donald Trump

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” – Donald Trump

“I don’t think Ivanka would do that (pose for Playboy), although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” – Donald Trump

“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.” – Donald Trump

"The point is, you can never be too greedy." – Donald Trump

“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, (Carly Fiorina’s) a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" – Donald Trump

There are many other offensive Trump quotes that don’t just tarnish the office he seeks but are simply not the type of example we want the highest office of the land setting for our children. How is it that large portions of America have turned a blind eye to how far removed from the dignity of the office Trump is??

Verdict: Failure as clear as it comes.

Johnson

Gary Johnson has no international government or diplomatic experience. His tenure as governor of New Mexico did provide him with being a representative of the state which would serve to prepare for the role of head of state but his role as governor was purely local and did not come with any diplomatic power or experience.

Verdict: More qualified than Trump but would require on the job learning.

Clinton

Clinton's experience relating to diplomacy and the international arena is light years beyond her opponents and includes:

• Serving as the second highest American diplomatic: Secretary of State (2009 - 2013). Logging 956,733 miles in traveling around the world and meeting with heads of state, foreign counterparts and various foreign dignitaries, she knows the rules and decorum of this space and was well received abroad during her tenure. The only other possible experience that would compare with this would be service as President of the United States for one term which is not applicable in this race given that a two term president is exiting office.
• Assignment to the Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009), particularly the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities (sales of U.S. military technology to foreign countries).

Verdict: outside of serving as president for one term, there is no other experience that compares. Clinton has done what the president will do.

The Candidates' Experience Relating to Head of Government

Trump

Trump has zero executive experience in government. Trump has zero legislative experience in government. He has zero experience in government period (assuming you ignore all the times he has had his companies in court for being sued or times the government has investigated his business activities).

"Wait," says a Trump supporter. "Trump is the CEO of his company. He has TREMENDOUS executive experience!"

This is a common fallacy (especially when your reason for being CEO was a result of an accident of birth i.e. inheritance). The skill set required to be a successful CEO of a private organization is not the same as that required to be an effective executive in government. The arenas are different. The rules are different. A personality type that might succeed in the private sector is no guarantee of success in the public sector. Moreover, even within the private sector there are different skills sets required for different activities (e.g. someone more have the skill set to found a company but they may not have what it takes to run that company as it grows). This is why there is often nothing to write home about when successful CEOs in the private sector get into government.

To be clear, this is not to say that a CEO in the private sector can't be effective in government. It just doesn't always translate. Apart from Trump inheriting his fortune, his success in business is not even close to what he boasts about.

Finally, aside from the lack of experience in government, Trump is sorely uneducated in government. Not only does he lack a fundamental understand of how the government works perhaps even worse he displays no desire to learn and fill his void. As he said, he just gets his information from the "shows".

Verdict. Zero government experience to suddenly be thrust into the highest office of the land.

Johnson

Johnson’s service as governor of New Mexico did serve as a preparatory role for being head of the federal government. Being a governor of a state is a microcosm of being the head of the federal government – there is a legislature to deal with, bills to sign into law, bills to veto, judges to appoint and various constituent groups to meet with. Johnson’s successful career in the private sector also provides executive experience but as stated the skill set does not necessarily translate. His experience as governor however would.

Verdict: Johnson does possess experience that would prepare him for the presidential role of head of government.

Clinton

Clinton's experience in government far exceeds the alternatives there is almost no comparison. Her experience includes:

• Being just one level down from the president in running the executive branch, that is, being CEO of one of the major departments in the executive branch: The State Department. With approximately 69,000 employees and an annual budget of around $66 billion, the state department is a much larger organization that the average entity in the private sector (and for that matter, the State of New Mexico that currently has 23,365 executive branch employees [27,114 total employees] and a current budget of $6.29 billion). In this role Clinton was also fourth in line for the presidency even above the secretary of defense.
• United States Senator from New York (2001 - 2009). During her tenure in the senate Clinton had first hand experience in the legislative branch of the federal government and received the following assignments:

Committee on the Budget (2001-2003)

Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009)

Subcommittee on Airland

Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001-2009)

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure (2007-2008)

Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health (Chairwoman, 2007-2009)

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001-2009)

Subcommittee on Children and Families

Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety

Special Committee on Aging.

She was also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (2001-2009).

Clinton also held two leadership positions in the Senate Democratic Caucus:

Chairwoman of Steering and Outreach Committee (2003–2006)

Vice Chairwoman of Committee Outreach (2007–2009)

(above from Wikipedia. The same information available from many other sources)

• Although not an office of the federal government, as First Lady (1993 - 2001) she had an intimate look into the presidency as only a handful of living individuals have. As First Lady Clinton also participated in the presidency’s ceremonial functions.
• Although not an office of the State of Arkansas, as First Lady of the state (1983 - 1992) she had an intimate look into the workings of a state government for roughly a decade.
• Clinton's education in political science and law and her subsequent law practice provide further context and understanding as to the workings of the public sector.

Verdict: rarely if ever does a presidential candidate come this experienced for being a head of government.

The Candidates' Experience Relating to Commander in Chief

Trump

Donald Trump has zero military experience (yet apparently knows more than military generals about ISIS), displays a dangerous lack of knowledge about military facts (for example nuclear weapons), seems to have no clue about foreign policy and affairs (e.g. did not know that Russia was in the Ukraine) and has praise for authoritarian dictators (e.g. his unusual praise for Vladimir Putin). There is nothing more to say here.

Verdict: Dangerously unqualified to be at the head of the most powerful military in the world and is one of the many reasons why prominent Republicans refuse to endorse him.

Johnson

Johnson does not possess any military experience. His service as governor of New Mexico provided him with a commander-in-chief experience over the national guard in New Mexico, but it is not an apples to apples comparison with the presidential role of commander in chief with armed forces spread out over the world. When it comes to understanding foreign and military policy, Johnson, like Trump, has displayed some major gaps of basic knowledge, for example when asked if elected what would he do about Aleppo (city in Syria central to the conflict there), his was response was “And what is Aleppo?”

Verdict: No direct experience but with experience that would qualify him more than Trump.

Clinton

Clinton has direct experience with military affairs:

• As Secretary of State Clinton was a statutory member of the National Security Council (NSC). As such Clinton was an official advisor and assistant to the president in national security matters as well as foreign policy. For example, it was the NSC with Clinton as a member that advised the president to conduct the raid that lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden (Clinton having reviewed the intelligence and advising for it).
• As already referenced, as senator Clinton served on the Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009), the subcommittees being: 1) Airland, providing experience in all issues relating to the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation programs; the the National Guard, the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve. 2) Emerging Threats and Capabilities, providing Clinton with experience in overseeing the sale of military equipment abroad. 3) Readiness and Management Support, providing Clinton with oversight of “Military readiness including training, logistics, and maintenance; military construction; housing construction and privatization; contracting and acquisition policy; business and financial management; base realignment and closure; and defense environmental programs.” (http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/about/subcommittees)

Verdict: Significant experience in addition to being well versed in foreign policy. Light years ahead of her opponents.

Conclusion

Although Utah only has six votes in the electoral college, they could make or break the election, an election that will more than just define America’s future but an election that will influence the world. Utah’s electoral college votes must go to Clinton who has the relevant experience and not Trump just because he is a Republican.

If there are still concerns over Clinton’s politics, or difficulties in general in voting for a Democrat, then the solution is not to vote for a third party candidate because again Clinton far surpasses the third party options in relevant experience for the job. The solution is to vote for Clinton for president and to vote Republican for Utah’s congressional candidates to be reminded that congress will keep Clinton in check.

This is a serious election. As the next post will discuss, the attitude that “Don’t worry Trump will lose” is a dangerous one. I call upon Utah to rise above other traditionally Republican states that will give their electoral votes to Trump because he is a Republican, or he has fooled them into thinking he can do the job, or because Clinton’s shortcomings have been grossly over exaggerated and not put in context.

Let’s give our electoral votes to the candidate with the most relevant experience for the job description as outlined by the Constitution. Let us put country over party and do what is right by giving our electoral votes to Clinton.

Bloglius

Wrong Principles Versus No Principles

A Parallel in American History

In the 1800 United States presidential election, there was a tie in the electoral votes between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. At the time, each member of the Electoral College cast two votes for president, the candidate with the most votes becoming president and the runner up vice president. Given that both Jefferson and Burr received 73 electoral votes each, the tied election then became the responsibility of the House of Representative to decide. However, after 35 ballots in that body to try to settle the election, the two candidates remained tied and the election undecided.

The tie in the Electoral College was largely the result of some failed political maneuverings on behalf of the Democratic-Republicans to attempt to elect Jefferson and so other political maneuverings were undertaken to break the tied vote in the house. Chief among those to undertake these political maneuverings to settle the tie was Alexander Hamilton.

In the election, Hamilton had supported Federalist candidate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, but Pinckney only received 64 electoral college votes. With his candidate out of the race, Hamilton knew that the United States was going to be under the leadership of either Jefferson or Burr, the former being Hamilton's political enemy, the latter being a man he did not see fit for the presidency.

In short, Hamilton decided that the United States would be better off under a Jefferson presidency than a Burr presidency, and so Hamilton used his influence to have the house of representatives vote for Jefferson, which they did on the 36th ballot, electing Jefferson as president and Burr as vice president. What is interesting and is applicable in the 2016 presidential election is Hamilton's rationale for wanting to elect Jefferson over Burr.

Although Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson on almost all matters of policy, when it came to comparing Jefferson with Burr he said that Jefferson was "by far not so dangerous a man" as Burr. Hamilton would rather have a president with "wrong principles" than a president who had "no principles". And so Hamilton did what he believed was right for his country, even though it would require electing his arch-nemesis to the highest office in the land.

History Repeating Itself

Although there are no Electoral College ties to break at present, the lesson above is important as Utahns face a similar choice in 2016. It is no secret that there is not a whole lot of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton in Utah; for various reasons many Utahns don't like her and or they do not subscribe to her ideas for governing the nation. But in Utah there is also widespread dislike of Donald Trump, and not just in democratic leaning Salt Lake City. Trump is widely viewed as an arrogant phony with a short fuse who will say or do whatever to get attention. In short, he is viewed as a man who would be dangerous to put in the Oval Office.

The purpose of this post is not to say that Hillary's policies are right or wrong, only that she has been guided by principles of public service throughout her life whereas Trump's only principle seems to be aggrandizing and enriching himself. Beyond that, Hillary is experienced in all the areas pertaining to the responsibilities of the presidency, whereas Trump is ignorant of some of the most basic things a president should know. These things and others are the reasons why various Republicans are saying it would be dangerous to put Trump in the White House and why they will vote for Clinton over him.

I say to Utah that it is fine to believe that Hillary Clinton has wrong policies, but it is really worth it to vote Republican just because that is your political party and you dislike the idea of voting for a Democrat? Do you really want to play a part in a Donald Trump presidency?

Another Lesson Drawn from 1800

There are those who will say that there is another way to address the problem of Trump: to vote for a third party candidate instead of Hillary. Another post shall give attention to that idea, but for now, let this post end on another lesson from the election of 1800 that is applicable to this election:

Even though the Federalists believed Jefferson was better for the United States than Burr, they still feared what Jefferson would do once in office. However, their fears of a revolutionary, extremist Jefferson went unrealized as Jefferson's actions in office were far more practical and moderate compared to some of his rhetoric before he shouldered the burdens of the White House. The same will be true of Hillary Clinton should she win. She will make her mistakes in office like all other presidents. But like Jefferson in his day, Clinton has extensive government experience and deep knowledge of domestic policy and international relations, even having served in the same capacity beforehand, that is, as secretary of state. Trump, as a presidential candidate, didn't even know some of the basics about the Constitution.

Utah, the choice doesn't often get much clearer than it is this year: we must go blue this November; we must play our part in electing Clinton over Trump.

Bloglius.