In a piece for the November issue titled Against Donald Trump, the subtitle informs readers
For the third time since The Atlantic’s founding, the editors endorse a candidate for president. The case for Hillary Clinton.
The magazine was founded by James Russell Lowell in 1857 to advocate for abolition of slavery. Thus it is not surprising that its first endorsement was for the man who would become known as The Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln.
The editorial quotes Russell’s words at the time, which became relevant and were quoted again at the time of its second endorsement, in 1964, of Lyndon Baines Johnson, in a piece by Edward Weeks.
ut The Atlantic’s endorsement of Johnson was focused less on his positive attributes than on the flaws of his opponent, Barry Goldwater, the junior senator from Arizona. Of Goldwater, Weeks wrote, “His proposal to let field commanders have their choice of the smaller nuclear weapons would rupture a fundamental belief that has existed from Abraham Lincoln to today: the belief that in times of crisis the civilian authority must have control over the military.” And the magazine noted that Goldwater’s “preference to let states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia enforce civil rights within their own borders has attracted the allegiance of Governor George Wallace, the Ku Klux Klan, and the John Birchers.” Goldwater’s limited capacity for prudence and reasonableness was what particularly worried The Atlantic.
After quoting some more of what Weeks wrote in that endorsement, the editorial pivots to our present day situation, beginning with this paragraph:
Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.
Yes, those are strong words: the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency
The editorial however makes clear that it finds much to admire in the prior service of Mrs. Clinton, noting
she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.
By contrast, Donald Trump offers no relevant prior service, and totally lacks qualifications:
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.
The editors note that this is not merely their judgment, citing the many of Trump’s own party rejecting him in something not seen since the candidacy of Goldwater n 1964. They state bluntly
Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy
tracing this back to his vile advocacy of the birther movement.
That they endorse Clinton and reject Trump, they make clear, does not mean that they reject those many Trump followers
who are motivated by legitimate anxieties about their future and their place in the American economy. But Trump has seized on these anxieties and inflamed and racialized them, without proposing realistic policies to address them.
They cite The Atlantic’s founding statement
that it would be “the organ of no party or clique,”
and assert they are neither seeking to advance the Democratic Party nor hinder the Republican Party. They list a number of Republicans who were they that party’s nominee against Mrs. Clinton they would not be making this endorsement. They would not even have considered it.
The editorial then closes with this powerful statement:
We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But 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.
Read the whole thing.
Pass it on.