I’ve discussed this election many times in this column over the past year.

Of course, this election cycle is the most interesting one we’ve experienced in decades. Not since Kennedy and Nixon began the tradition of televised presidential debates in 1960, has this country seen such a spectacle.

As I write this, it is June 8.

I ponder whether I should wait until just before my usual publishing date in the third week of the month to finish this column because who knows what outrageous thing will emerge from Donald Trump’s mouth? Keep in mind that Trump’s misstatements reveal critical faults in his character; they are not simply amateurish gaffes.

If any pundit claims to know what will happen in the final five months of this campaign, we should double over in laughter because such a claim is preposterous. Just think back five months. Who would have predicted that Donald J. Trump would be the presumed Republican nominee? None of the talking heads on TV predicted this outcome then.

Also, nobody but a few leaders in the Federal Bureau of Investigation knows whether Hillary Clinton will be indicted for her actions as Secretary of State. After a spring of revelations, we’re accepting the proposition that Hillary Clinton recklessly put national security at risk with her unbelievably selfish, dangerous, and probably criminal decision to use a private e-mail server for all her official e-mail correspondence while Secretary of State.

An indictment for that could be issued at almost any minute. Even without an indictment, could we elect someone who has acted so foolishly and recklessly? Would America have elected Richard Nixon twice if we had known beforehand how devious and underhanded he was?

The nominees are set even though each has record unfavorable ratings. Each of the candidates now has enough committed delegates so this summer’s two political conventions will be the usual scripted extravaganzas. Unless mischief-makers stir up the conventions like the 1968 Chicago Democrat convention, the biggest suspense will center on the selection and announcement of running mates. Yawn.

So let me fearlessly push on with this line of comment but in a different direction. Suppose science could clone a previous president and grow him to maturity in months to be an alternative to our lousy choices. Which president should we choose? I’ll choose Harry Truman. Wow! I’ve never voted for a Democrat for president.

I must admit that if I were able to vote in 1948, I probably would have voted for Dewey over Truman. What did I know then? I was only 2 years old. With the benefit of 68 years of hindsight, Truman deserved to win. Each of his major decisions: desegregating the armed forces, firing General MacArthur, supporting Israel’s independence and supporting containment of communism instead of using military confrontation was proven correct.

Consider that each of those decisions were controversial at the time; it took courage and an adherence to principle over politics by Truman to establish that sterling record. The more I learn about Truman, the more I respect him. We desperately need another Harry Truman!

I know what you’re thinking. What does this have to do with 2016?

My point is that our only remaining course, it appears, is to appeal to a higher power to rescue us from our folly. I don’t think that the science of cloning will be critical to our salvation this year.

Maybe divine intervention will yet turn this disaster into something positive. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating physical harm to either candidate. I hope that our political process will be able to find a way out of this impending disaster.

If politics and cloning fail, about the only hope left is that we may pray for salvation. I know that I will get on my knees many times between now and November.

 

Michael Waldron is a retired lieutenant colonel, U.S. Army, who was born and raised in Niles. He previously served on the Niles Community School Board of Education. He can be reached at ml.waldron@sbcglobal.net.