Talk is Cheap

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             - George Orwell 

I am writing this as I am waiting for the results..

2016 U.S. Presidential Elections is finally coming to an end on 8th November (U.S. time) after a year and a half long campaign. I would admit, I was never really interested in nor informed about American politics. (Does occasionally watching GIFs of the Obamas count?) I had wanted Obama to win in 2008 and 2012 because of his charisma, his catchy 'Yes We Can!' tagline and um, for the lack of a better reason, 'to create history' with him being the first African-American POTUS. But I never did pay enough attention to the opposing candidate. Who was the Republican candidate in 2012 again?

This year, however, is very different. It is impossible to not know Donald Trump as well as Hillary Clinton. I did not watch the reality TV show 'Apprentice' (and never got previous movie references to Trump) but his rise to prominence as the Republican nominee is a blaring siren. This man, with his political incorrectness, has made plenty of succinct and provocative remarks on different issue areas on his Twitter account - that it was rumoured his campaign had to confiscate the account from him the weekend before Voting Day to prevent him from spewing more lewd nonsense.

I had never witnessed negative campaigning of such intensity prior to this year's elections. 'Negative Campaigning', also known as 'mudslinging', refers to the attempt of gaining an advantage over the opponent by highlighting and emphasising on his negative attributes. Both Trump and Hillary are guilty of this, though the latter does try to shift the focus back to policy discussion on key issue areas like foreign policy, gun control, abortion and more. The Straits Times does a good job at highlighting the differences in Trump and Hillary's policy proposals, backgrounds and even tweeting styles. I am not a big fan of negative campaigning as I find that it obscures discourse on important issues that really concern the voters. So what if Trump makes nasty remarks on women and has an inconsistent stand on abortion? Does it naturally make Hillary a better and more qualified candidate?

Yet, it is indeed hard to not roast your opponent when he has no concrete plans to offer - "I'll tell you later. I'll keep you in suspense" - when he was asked what he has in mind to defeat ISIS. It does not take a genius to figure out that Trump loves going about in circles whenever he is asked for details. But, his bold, outrageous and radical words do appeal to the populists - the common people who are tired of shrewd political expediency and correctness. They like Trump as a powerful orator standing before them on the podium gesturing with his hands like the conductor of an orchestra. It is, admittedly, entertaining to watch Trump speak, and lie, and accuse and scoff. I like that his comebacks are spontaneous, unscripted and at times witty - which are not really Hillary's strong suits.   

But talk is cheap, my darling.

Donald Trump is politically inexperienced and a serial liar, while Hillary Clinton is seen as scheming and untrustworthy. This casts doubt on the two-party system in America. Is there truly no viable alternative that can represent people who are unconvinced by either of the candidates? Do the people really have to choose "the lesser of the evils"? Should Democrat supporters get angry at people who voted for the Independent candidate even though they know he will never win?