OPINION | Voters were cut off by the extreme politicization that exists in the US | CNN

Editor's Note:

Rocío Vélez is a lawyer, with more than 15 years of experience in international marketing, business development, and environmental advocacy.

Republican strategist.

Graduated from the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico with a postgraduate degree in History and Political Sciences from Point Park University in Pittsburgh.

The opinions expressed in this comment are those of the author.

See more opinion at cnne.com/opinion

(CNN Spanish) -

The president of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and the representative for Maryland, Jamie Raskin, recently presented a bill to create a commission that allows the removal of the president of the United States through amendment 25 of the Constitution.

What Pelosi proposed, right after President Donald Trump's coronavirus diagnosis, would give Congress the ability to determine whether a president should be removed because he is unable to do his job.

Currently, Amendment 25 allows a president to be removed from office if a majority of the cabinet members and the vice president consider him incapable of fulfilling his duties.

In that case, the vice president would take over.

Pelosi has said it's not about Trump, but about future presidents.

The measure has almost no chance of being approved.

This move, in my opinion, is creepy and denotes the extreme politicization that our nation has experienced, after President Donald Trump won the elections in 2016.

LOOK: Nancy Pelosi announces project to modify the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution

advertising

From that moment began the attempts to impeach him.

But it was not until September 2019 that the legal commission in Congress led us on the route of an unsuccessful process against the president.

Trump was acquitted in February this year, after a 5-month investigation and an impeachment trial that began with the complaint by an informant of his behavior towards Ukraine.

The president faced two charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

We were too burdened and distracted with the complete failure of the meager exercise of a congress that was irresponsible because it exhausted its resources of hearings on witnesses and months of testimony knowing that the process would not prosper in the Senate.

And by February of this year, with the arrival of the new coronavirus, we were all engrossed in the usual Donald Trump show.

The entire focus was on trying to impeach a president, knowing they didn't have the votes in the Senate to do it.

Instead, they could have at least had a dialogue about how to achieve true health care reform, not an unaffordable plan with high premiums and inflated deductibles for a strangled middle class like the current one.

Perhaps they could have spoken to join forces and achieve a real immigration reform or an economic plan that would increase the minimum wage throughout the country.

The only effort that merits the energy of the president's opponents is a few days away and is an election: November 3.

We can differ on the absurd way in which Trump behaves in the face of covid-19.

We can even openly criticize the measures taken by this administration during the pandemic.

But we cannot fall into the paranoia of using constitutional safeguards to arbitrarily attack the institution of the presidency without reasons specifically outlined in the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

If we fall for these excessive acts, who takes away that if Joe Biden wins the elections, the same strategy is not used against him in order to expedite Kamala Harris to the presidency.

All this wasted energy could be used in a stimulus plan that helps families who are about to be evicted from their residences, who receive an unemployment check that does not pay for the high costs of living or the rent of their house.

A stimulus plan that addresses the crisis faced by many small businesses, half of the restaurants that continue to close and that employ thousands of workers, mostly Latinos.

But no, it is more important to play cheap politics and none of those responsible, neither the president, nor the Congress that controls the portfolio and the allocation of public funds, can do their job because it is more important to make the other side look worse .

Those of us who got shorn are the voters.

And what are the alternatives that they offer us in a week to combat this leadership inertia?

Well, the fabulous option of a former vice president who for eight years, and despite the recovery, could not prevent jobs from being of quality or sufficient for the middle class, although he was able to attend the banks.

And in his more than three decades in Congress, he has also dedicated himself to helping banks and credit card issuers.

It contributed to the passage of crime-fighting measures such as the 1994 law, which led to the imprisonment of many offenders.

The vast majority of this measure affected black individuals, as The New York Times reported.

The other option is President Donald Trump, who lives obsessed with the rises in the stock market and his own image and lacks the gift of empathy that, in the midst of this pandemic, citizens desperately need.

That is why the electoral apathy of more than half of the potential voters who decided not to participate in the 2016 general elections should not be surprising.

No real change options are provided that elicit mass participation.

What we have is a distorted Republican base, supporters of Donald Trump who feel that their candidate has been harshly attacked by the media and that Biden has been treated with silk gloves.

On the other hand, the independent vote is equally dislocated.

After watching the first presidential debate, which simulated a cockfight with insults and epithets of both candidates, and constant interruptions, especially by Trump, without an ounce of content or proposals, there are no alternatives to cast an independent vote that, as has been tradition, can be the deciding factor of an election.

According to all national polls and polls, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be the winners of the presidential election.

His message to voters and the great platform has been that in just four years in office, Trump is bad and guilty of all the grievances from decades of spending, useless wars, high medical costs, deaths from a global pandemic, racism. … In short, it is very easy to put the blame in a single pot.

I wonder: after a possible electoral defeat of Donald Trump, what will be the topic in the media?

Who can we focus our attention on on Twitter?

After talking about Trump for more than 1,400 consecutive days, will we be prepared for the existential void that his absence in the media will leave us?

And if they give us another electoral surprise like in 2016, will we be satisfied and calm, being able to blame all our ills and regrets again on the king of marketing and the advertising show, Donald Trump?

To be continue…

Joe Biden Nancy Pelosi