This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
"Extreme vetting" was a favorite theme of Donald Trump's candidacy. Although he was trying to address his questionable perception of immigration from Muslim nations, Mexico and other "problem areas: of the world — an extremely problematic proposition — the concept suggests steps within the Republican primary process that should have been taken. It's even true of opposition parties, including some of the Democrat's candidate selection process, that of those "feeling the Bern," independents, and the Green party — which could have done better, too. Were Trump to have been subjected to serious vetting at almost any level of intensity, we'd have a different set of candidates, possibly facing someone other than Mrs. Clinton (though I doubt if anyone else could have survived the screen for survivability against the radical-right Congress upcoming).
We're all immigrants. If we broaden the concept to include those who have actually become acculturated from marginal parts of our society, such as the very rich in New York City or elsewhere, who take points of reference from the leadership of other nations. Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, bolstered by his (and Trump's, apparently) relationship with Vladimir Putin, recently director of the KGB, surely would not survive any serious 'vetting,' whether 'extreme' or not. Will the Republican Party now critically review its wacko-right, conspiracy-preferring extremes ("deplorables"??), or not, may determine whether they or another opposition party carries Democracy into future decades. It's up to them, and to those of us who will critically "vet" the entire process.
Ivan Weber
Salt Lake City