A Millennial’s Take on the Insanity of the First Debate

by Jacob Nestle

The first squaring-off of the two major-party candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, was last night. I’m already about ready to move out of the country. Both were so blatantly statist that it hurt to watch. Trump attacked hard. He landed some real zingers from time-to-time. Clinton shot back. She was only able to land a few insults. Her strength came in the form of Trump’s lack of self-control. If her strategy was to let Trump undo himself, then she certainly toed the line if not outright succeeded.

What surprised me, actually, was just how subdued they both were, especially at the beginning. I expected some serious shouting, but both refrained. Sort of, as of course, Trump spoke over both Clinton and the moderator, Lester Holt. He interrupted her alone over two dozen times (I stopped counting at twenty). Both played soundbites. They said certain things just to point to their own quotes later. They also played to the crowd. Hillary rammed home certain liberal talking points against the rich and on climate change. Trump dissed the Fed (to get the Ron Paul supporters, I suppose) and compared himself to Ronald Reagan more than once.

Just after the debate I posted on Facebook a simple “So, who won?” The responses were consistent. Other than a few stragglers (one Hillary supporter and two Trump supporters), they summed it up with Either way, America lost. 

My friend who posted that isn’t a libertarian. It’s indicative of just how dramatic this whole campaign has been from day one. When even people who can be statists themselves are worried, we should be terrified. As a young person, my worries about the repercussions of policy are unique. I, essentially, have to think long-term. I don’t like our long-term prospects.

One of those clowns on the debate stage will be president for the rest of my whole undergraduate career. I don’t like that one bit. It doesn’t really matter which. They’re crazy on different issues. However, as ever-more evidence builds that the two-party system is a quid pro quo, they agree on central points. Both agreed wholeheartedly we should be sending Americans overseas to die, in someone else’s land, for ‘interests.’ They agreed that America is the world’s policeman. They agreed on the substance of foreign policy as interventionists. The only disagreement was on semantics. Do I think Trump’s foreign policy is workable? Of course not. He seems to be actively trying to tank himself on foreign policy and yet it keeps working for him.

Here’s the real kicker: they agreed on the Second Amendment. Both wanted to take away guns. It amused me to see the verbal acrobatics they both pulled. Trump’s hands were, of course, tied because he couldn’t sound actively against guns, but he can only claim to support the NRA and yet talk about stop-and-frisk and taking away firearms so often before someone catches on. Hillary had no reason to hide it. She simply attacked guns and gun violence.

In their own way, both are against our civil liberties. That much has been made abundantly clear. As a millennial, I am worried. I’m not scared that a President Trump or Clinton would cause WWIII. That’s technically a possibility. It’s a real concern. That’s not what worries me. What worries me is that I’ll graduate college into a changed world. I’m worried that I’ll graduate college into a world where certain basic liberties are infringed. It’s a real possibility.

Although I’m worried, I’m also hopeful. I’m hopeful that four years of absolute statism and insanity will persuade the majority of people to rise up and take back both the White House and Congress. We can fix this. We need constitutional, intelligent leaders; statesmen, not politicians, who will refine and enlarge the opinion of the people. This Republic is worth keeping. After all, America began as an experiment in self-government. If we fail, it’s on our own heads.