The New York Times reports Clinton and Trump have each said the other is "unfit to lead the country." I believe there is some evidence both are correct in these assertions.
Certainly, the incumbent (Obama) has proven himself unfit to lead the nation, and perhaps a majority would allege his predecessor (Bush) was also unfit, albeit in different ways. None of this is an argument for a third party candidate, they appear if anything substantially less fit to lead.
I believe it gives us reason to believe our political process is, as currently structured, inadvertently designed to serve up unfit candidates. Problem diagnosis - easy enough. Problem cure - unknown.
There is every reason to believe Democrats will continue to serve up as presidential nominees a series of self-identified victim group members in order to motivate their sad base coalition of life's losers, and those who feel sorry for them. As de facto affirmative action candidates they will be expected to do little, that little badly, and are likely to live down to those expectations.
Meanwhile Republicans could be counted on to keep teeing up nominees who represented the views of its donor class of fat cats instead of the voter base. Until along came a narcissistic dude who could afford to self-fund a campaign actually appealing to grass roots views. He demonstrated just how far out of the mainstream most previous GOP nominees had been, winning the nomination handily. Unfortunately, egotism is unlikely to be a prime prerequisite for presidential greatness.
This nation was founded by giants: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin and others less well-known. Does our society even produce people of that caliber today? And if so, where are they hiding, what are they doing? Not, it would seem, politics.
