Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed in the following article belong solely to the author and do not reflect or represent Newsner. 

On November 5, 2024, the United States had a choice, and we blew it. Not only that, but we set a dangerous precedent.

We were given the opportunity to elect the country’s first Black woman and person of South Asian descent into office, but instead we chose an elderly white man who has been convicted of 34 felony counts.

This election raises troubling questions about our nation’s standards for leadership. What does it mean when the most powerful position in the United States is held by someone with a significant criminal record? How are Americans able to overlook serious convictions while casting their ballots?

It is difficult to understand the willingness to ignore criminal charges, especially felonies, when choosing a leader. The decision speaks volumes about our current political climate, and it reflects a willingness among many to prioritize policy preferences over legal integrity.

Early Wednesday morning, former president Donald Trump was elected president of the United States after he won the battleground state of Wisconsin, sending him over the necessary 270 electoral votes. Vice President Harris earned 224 electoral votes. 

Electing a convicted felon to the White House sets an uncomfortable precedent, suggesting that criminal records may no longer be disqualifying for public office.

We saw a version of this in 2008, when Alaska Senator Ted Stevens remained in office despite a conviction on seven felony counts–he later lost re-election and left office in January 2009. Stevens’ case was concerning enough, yet the 2024 election opens the door to potentially wider implications. If a candidate with 34 felony counts can hold the nation’s highest office, who is to say that a local mayor, governor, or even city council member convicted of a crime couldn’t be elected?

Is this what we want for our country?

The election of former president Donald Trump, despite his convictions, reveals deep divisions in the way Americans view leadership and accountability. For many voters, policy outweighed criminal charges. For others, a distrust of institutions may have driven a belief that his legal troubles were politically motivated. But regardless of motive, this decision poses difficult questions about the character we value in our leaders.

We can only wonder what long-term impact this will have on the character and reputation of the United States. Only time will tell if it was a mistake.