Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the opinions of Newsner.
On November 5, 2024, Americans faced a pivotal decision—and, in my view, we made the wrong one. Worse still, we’ve established a precedent that could have troubling consequences.
Voters had the historic chance to elect the nation’s first Black woman and individual of South Asian heritage to the presidency. Instead, the choice fell on an elderly white man, recently found guilty on 34 felony charges.
This outcome forces us to confront unsettling questions about the standards we set for our leaders. What message do we send when the highest office in the land is occupied by someone with a lengthy criminal record? How did so many Americans justify overlooking such serious convictions when casting their votes?
It’s hard to comprehend how felony charges could be dismissed so easily in the context of a presidential election. This decision highlights a political environment where many seem willing to put their preferred policies above the importance of legal and ethical standards.
In the early hours of Wednesday, former president Donald Trump secured victory after winning Wisconsin, surpassing the 270 electoral votes required. Vice President Harris finished with 224 electoral votes.
Choosing a president with a criminal record is unprecedented and suggests that such a history may no longer be a barrier to holding public office.
A similar, though less dramatic, situation occurred in 2008, when Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska remained in his position after being convicted of seven felonies—though he ultimately lost his seat and left office in January 2009. While that case was alarming, the 2024 election may have even broader implications. If someone with 34 felony convictions can be elected president, what’s to stop individuals with criminal records from becoming mayors, governors, or city council members?
Is this truly the direction we want for our nation?
The election of Donald Trump, despite his convictions, exposes stark divisions in how Americans perceive leadership and responsibility. For some, policy priorities outweighed legal concerns. Others may have been motivated by distrust in the system, believing the charges were politically driven. Regardless of the reasons, this choice challenges our expectations about the character and integrity we demand from those in power.
Only time will reveal the lasting effects of this decision on America’s values and global standing. We can only hope we have not made a grave error.