This election cycle is seeing a large number of firsts ranging from the first time ever than no major newspaper anywhere in the nation has endorsed the Republican presidential nominee, only the third time ever endorsement by The Atlantic, and now, Foreign Policy breaking a 50 year tradition and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. Why? Because, the consensus is that Donald Trump is utterly unfit to serve as president and poses a threat to the nation. In addition, in contrast to Trump, Clinton is an experienced and qualified candidate. Here are highlights from the endorsement:
In the nearly half century history of , the editors of this publication have never endorsed a candidate for political office. We cherish and fiercely protect this publication’s independence and its reputation for objectivity, and we deeply value our relationship with all of our readers, regardless of political orientation.It is for all these reasons that ’s editors are now breaking with tradition to endorse Hillary Clinton for the next president of the United States.
Our readers depend on for insight and analysis into issues of national security and foreign policy. We feel that our obligation to our readers thus extends now to making clear the great magnitude of the threat that a Donald Trump presidency would pose to the United States. The dangers Trump presents as president stretch beyond the United States to the , to , to , as well as to countless innocents everywhere who would be the victims of his , his perverse policy , and the profound unsuitability of his temperament for the office he seeks.
The litany of reasons Trump poses such a threat is so long that it is, in fact, shocking that he is a major party’s candidate for the presidency. The recent furor over his illustrates the extraordinary nature of his unsuitability, as does his repudiation by so many members of his own party — who have so many reasons to reflexively support their nominee.
Beyond this, however, in the areas in which we at specialize, he has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of the most basic facts of international affairs, let alone the nuances so crucial to the responsibilities of diplomacy inherent in the U.S. president’s daily responsibilities. Trump has not only of a tyrant and menace like Vladimir Putin, but he has in the current U.S. election. He has Russia’s invasion of Crimea and employed advisors with close ties to the Russian president and his cronies. Trump has spoken so cavalierly about , including a repeated willingness to use them against terrorists, that it has become clear he about America's nuclear policies — not to mention the moral, legal, and human consequences of such actions. He has against it.
Trump has played into the hands of terrorists with his fear mongering, with his sweeping and unwarranted , and by sensationalizing the threat they pose. He has promised to take punitive actions against America’s Pacific trading partners that would be devastating to the world economy and in violation of our legal obligations. He has and denied its looming and dangerous reality. He has promoted a delusional and narcissistic view of the world, one in which he seems to feel that in negotiations could redirect the course of other nations, remake or supplant treaties, and contain those tyrants he does not actually embrace.
He has treated the press with derision, , and his campaign has that targeted specific news organizations, suggesting a complete disregard for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He has shown such a complete disregard for the truth that he has arguably done more than any other single individual to seek to usher in a new and unwelcome post-fact era in America’s political debate.
[W]e are not the first to say it, but Trump is the worst major-party candidate this republic has ever produced.
Fortunately, not only is Trump opposed by a worthy candidate, but his opponent is, on foreign-policy and national security issues — all of the areas we cover here at — this country has produced since World War II.
Hillary Clinton is a quality candidate who is unquestionably well-prepared to lead this country. What is more, we do not think it is a small thing that by her election she will be righting a deep wrong that has compromised U.S. democracy since its inception: the exclusion of women from its highest offices. Were she to be elected as this country’s first woman president, not only would it be historic and send an important signal about both inclusiveness and Americans’ commitment to electing candidates who have distinguished themselves on their merits, but she would enter office having already put down one great threat to the United States of America — the grotesque and deeply disturbing prospect of a Donald Trump presidency.