The editors of the Atlantic explain that they have, in the past 159 years, endorsed only two candidates. In 1860, the magazine endorsed Abraham Lincoln. Opposition to slavery had been one of the motivating forces behind the creation of the publication. In 1964, the magazine endorsed Lyndon Johnson — not so much because Johnson was ideal but because Goldwater was so threatening. The Atlantic was rattled because of Goldwater’s proposal to let field commanders, rather than the civilian government, control “smaller nuclear weapons.” Additionally, he had a “preference to let states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia enforce civil rights within their own borders [which had] attracted the allegiance of Governor George Wallace, the Ku Klux Klan, and the John Birchers.”
Despite their preference to avoid being an organ of any particular faction, clique, or political party, Trump’s candidacy is a threat to the country that compels the magazine to express its preference. In their words, Trump “might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.
This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number—in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater’s 1964 campaign—of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate’s own party have publicly renounced him. Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country’s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.
. . .
Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.
Meanwhile, while Clinton has flaws, they are ordinary political flaws. She is well prepared for the job and has demonstrated an “aptitude for analysis and hard work.”
These are strong words, but they are accurate. There is no equivalency. A Clinton Presidency may be good or bad, but a Trump Presidency would be catastrophic.
Beautifully worded statement about an ugly reality. I’m afraid they are preaching to the choir, but I hope it will reach at least some of the undecideds.
Well said, Dog and Stuart. I was listening to Andrew Sullivan today and he stated that Trump poses a threat to American Democracy and global stability. He carries Putin’s penis in his mouth. (Sorry to lurch into vulgarity, but the entire Trump/Republican candidacy is exceedingly vulgar.) He desires to renege on NATO commitments and encourages nuclear proliferation.
Just as he illegally uses his foundation as a slush fund, he will use the US Treasury as his slush fund.
Clinton will likely win. The Democrats will take back the Senate.
After the Romney loss, the Republicans retreated to Golden Corrall and wrote an action plan/obituary. They circulated it and promptly ignored it.
This time around the Republican party much search whatever soul it deigns to imagine. It must lose, and lose badly. It encourages racism, xenophobiia, kleptocracy. It courts misogyny while parading the tit jobs. It has sown the wind. We must hope that the nation does not reap the Republican whirlwind.
That sums up my thoughts pretty well. Clinton’s flaws are exactly the type that our system of government is designed to contain.
Trump’s flaws on the other hand, are exactly the kind that can do serious permanent damage, especially to strong presidential systems like ours.
It’s not a good choice, but it’s not a hard one, either.
Good points, Jay. Over the years, presidents have taken more power from the other branches, and been given more power by the legislature.
The partisan divide in Congress is somewhat responsible for this. It’s the strongest branch if the legislators unite. When they don’t, executive power expands.
Good point, Dog. During war time or periods of crisis, presidents also arrogate power. Thinking about the founders’ concerns with overbearing executives, they really misjudged the direction the country would take. A parlimentary system like England would have turned out much closer to the direction the founders wished for the country.
The founders were not prescient and can be excused for the miscalculation. We fail greater than the founders because we have an opportunity to change the direction of the nation’s government.
Jay, excellent insight and a perspective I had not considered. Can i quote you on that?
But it is not an endorsement of Clinton per se as much as an ABT (anyone but Trump) endorsement. As they said, “… If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. …”
Too bad they can not, and do not, have the choice to do a positive endorsement. It would be really nice to have a “this person is so great that we endorse him/her” statement. Heck, it would be nice for all Americans. :-(
Here’s Mike Pence’s boss. I wonder if Pence will lie about these Trump statements. WARNING. Obscenity Ahead.
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/trump-caught-on-2005-hot-mic-bragging-about-groping-women-i-grab-them-by-the-pssy/
There is an interesting article in Salon about the Electoral College. The author rightly states that the Electoral College was put in place to prevent an existential threat to American Democracy and world peace such as Trump. We lived through Bush. The chances are much less with Trump.
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/18/donald-trump-a-threat-founding-fathers-foresaw-hes-the-reason-the-constitution-provides-for-the-electoral-college-and-the-best-case-for-superdelegates/
Wouldn’t it be an interesting time to teach or study Con Law 1 this semester?