A few years back (okay, maybe decades – I lose track) my friend Gordon posed a question: “Do we prefer an active incompetent or an inactive incompetent?”  At the time we were considering two investor groups for a start-up company we contemplated founding.

Note:  Merriam/Webster defines competence :  ‘The ability to do something successfully or efficiently.’

The question popped up again this morning during my walk in our neighborhood along a seawall that buffers middle class homes from the sea.  But there was no wall to protect their owners a from a jarring 29% property tax increase received last month.

I’m betting those homeowners would agree that we have an inactive incompetent mayor in City Hall.  One who lacks the courage to tackle the hard parts of governing; like cutting excessive overtime pay, reducing salaries for city councilmen, modify union contracts and retirement benefits and, (dare we say it – ‘lead his city to prosperity’?).

Sadly, there is another non-leader in the Oval Office. But the reins must pass.  I would argue  we are at a point where the choice is not to go right or left; rather we’re at a fulcrum, where the country will spiral upwards or go disastrously down. The choice is daunting.

Ordinary folks and media pundits argue endlessly over one disturbing question: Is either candidate competent to run the country, much less influence world affairs?  Leftists and right wingers argue vehemently but most  informed, thoughtful voters would, I think, agree this question is a malaise overhanging the election.

Both candidates have proven competence in amassing personal wealth; Trump by building businesses, Clinton through deductable cash contributions to her family sponsored Clinton Global Initiative and through speaking fees.

The media condemns Trump because he has no government experience.  The right condemns Clinton because everything she has touched during her political career has been a disaster:  from Whitewater to Egypt to Myanmar to Benghazi to the email mess.

Trump has been phenomenally successful as a business leader and job creator.  Those who argue differently by citing his bankruptcies forget he successfully navigated the arcane and obscure laws put in place by an incompetent U.S. Congress. And he benefited mightily. Can he transfer those skills to building a national and international consensus?

Clinton, on the other hand, became extremely wealthy despite one mistake after another made at the public expense. For five years she was the active right hand of an inactive incompetent. What would she change?

So, today’s question is slightly different from that posed by Gordon. . .

Do we gamble on an active, competent businessman or stick with an active incompetent bureaucrat?

The choice is yours.

You are welcome.