Odious debate

To begin with, a debate defining the outcome of an election to any extent is uncalled for in a democracy. That too in the most powerful nation of the world is much more disgusting. But, the Presidential debates at least serve a purpose.

They are expected to put before the nation the crucial questions confronting it. Not just the United States, the entire world is anxious to know what the prospective President of United States stands for. But, the second round of Presidential debate is largely distasteful and at times even disdainful.

The odious debate saw some of the most unpleasant moments with each candidate ripping apart other’s ignominious past.

Before the debate began, the Republican nominee Donald Trump called for an impromptu press conference by featuring the women who were allegedly assaulted sexually by former President Bill Clinton in a bid to outsmart Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s strategy is obvious as the Presidential debate this time was preceded by an intense critique of Trump’s nasty remarks against women. It’s conspicuous but unbecoming of a Presidential debate in the wonderful land of opportunities and innovations.

The crudeness was palpable all through the debate as both consummately indulged in an unprecedented personal acrimony. In the end, both the candidates have to acknowledge their mistakes. America would now unmistakably have someone who has committed a faux pas or a blunder as its President.

The humanity certainly deserves a much more serious debate. The world is eager to know how the new President of the super power would usher in a globe free from hunger, war, inequalities, despair, conflict etc. American people would certainly expect their presidential nominees to spell out how they would tackle pressing issues like recession, unemployment, ethnic and other forms of inequalities etc.

However, it is unfair to say that nothing of that sort has figured in the debate. The conservative Trump continued to express his regressive economics to subserve the interests of the American rich while Hillary espoused the cause of the middle class and the underdog.

This is refreshing as the nation saw the movements like Occupy Wall Street voicing the concerns of the 99 per cent against the microscopic one per cent defining the American policies. Thankfully, Hillary called for celebration of American diversity while Trump went on to relish racist brinkmanship raising fears of an intolerant US in the hands of the Republicans.

However, on the crucial international questions like that of West Asia, both seem to be not so diametrically opposed. Trump advocated American assertion while Hillary too favoured globally interventionist foreign policy.

But, Trump raised the banner of American hurt pride. Such a false consciousness can have grave implications if Donald Trump is elected to the White House. It can lead to greater global policing by Washington and protectionism in trade and economic affairs which are detrimental to the interests of the developing world. The world has no role in determining who will lead Uncle Sam. But, it has to face the consequences of it.