Endorsement Race 2016

In the nearly half century history of Foreign Policy, 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 FP’s editors are now breaking with tradition to endorse Hillary Clinton for the next president of the United States.

Our readers depend on FP 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 international economy, to global security, to America’s allies, as well as to countless innocents everywhere who would be the victims of his inexperience, his perverse policy views, 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 vile behavior with women 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 FP 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 promoted the leadership of a tyrant and menace like Vladimir Putin, but he has welcomed Russian meddling in the current U.S. election. He has alternatively forgiven then defended Russia’s invasion of Crimea and employed advisors with close ties to the Russian president and his cronies. Trump has spoken so cavalierly about the use of nuclear weapons, including a repeated willingness to use them against terrorists, that it has become clear he understands little if anything about America's nuclear policies — not to mention the moral, legal, and human consequences of such actions. He has embraced the use of torture and the violation of international law against it. He has suggested he would ignore America’s treaty obligations and would only conditionally support allies in need. He has repeatedly insulted Mexico and proposed policies that would inflame and damage one of America’s most vital trading relationships with that country.

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 FP — one of the best qualified candidates this country has produced since World War II. As first lady, New York senator, and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton regularly distinguished herself by her intelligence, dogged work ethic, ability to work across the political aisle, and leadership on difficult issues. She has devoted her entire life to public service and has been a powerful and effective advocate for women, children, and those in need at home and abroad. Whether you agree with all the policy stances of her campaign or not, impartial eyes will conclude that her proposals on climate change, combating terrorism, and human rights are thoughtful and comprehensive — and ultimately worthy of consideration.

On Nov. 8 — Election Day — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence, likely will carry Indiana, and Howard County specifically. Drive any thoroughfare and the passing landscape sprouts Trump/Pence signs. We can’t even tell you what a sign supporting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton or her running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, looks like.

Like we said, we know where we are.

But we also know who we are.

We tell the stories of this community and the Kokomo area. And since launching his presidential bid in June 2015, nothing we know of Trump or have heard him say corresponds to what we know of the people of north central Indiana.

Here, residents value generosity, humility and servanthood. We aspire to selflessness in all we do and encourage our children to follow that example.

Republican Donald Trump doesn’t share those values — made shockingly clear after Friday's release of his vulgar comments in a video from 2005. Democrat Hillary Clinton does. With early voting starting Wednesday, she is the Kokomo Tribune editorial board’s unanimous choice for president.

Neither she nor her husband, former President Bill Clinton, makes our decision easy. We hear the concerns about Hillary’s trustworthiness, resulting from such self-inflicted wounds as her private email server and her initial statements on the Benghazi terrorist raid. And she most certainly should’ve been more cognizant of a perception that some Clinton Foundation donors bought access to the State Department.

Yet when you weigh these flaws against her record of public service, political experience, diplomatic skills and ability to communicate clear policies on consequential domestic and foreign issues, she is the superior candidate for president. Her compassion and relief action for the victims and heroes of 9/11 stands out as well.

At no time in contemporary American history has there been a presidential election as important as the one on Nov. 8. It’s not a day to stay home, nor even vote down ballot and skip making a decision for president.

Neither of the candidates presented by the major parties are likable. But voters must consider who can best work with Congress on critical issues. At the top of these issues, in our view, is national security.

Here’s why Clinton is the choice for the job:

• She has already gathered her list of key advisers — including Gen. David Petraus, who executed the troop surge in Iraq under President George W. Bush. This is a strong indicator that Clinton’s national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home.

• As a senator, Clinton consistently voted to back the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act.

• She took a tough stance on providing advice to initiate the military mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

• She has eight years of experience as a senator and four as secretary of state, has developed relationships with heads of state and understands how to deal with aggressive political leaders in Russia, North Korea and China.

During the past few months, we have presented editorials critical of Trump’s treatment of veterans; his disregard for the Constitution and the First Amendment; and his repeated derision of women, Mexicans, Muslims and even this week, members of our military who are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

Many of you who are reading today’s editorial will disagree. We acknowledge Clinton is not without her flaws. She mishandled the dispute over her private email while secretary of state as well has her initial public statements on the terrorist raid on the U.S. post in Benghazi. She erred in not acting quickly to put a firewall between the Clinton Foundation and her office to avoid the perception that donors were buying access. And she definitely needs to be more transparent.

We know that many of Clinton’s values are not in alignment with yours. The same is true for us. Her political viewpoints often contrast with the more conservative viewpoints of the Globe’s editorial board. At any other time and with any other candidates, The Joplin Globe’s endorsement likely would have gone a different way.

But there are 50 former senior Republican national security officials, Chertoff among them, who have signed a letter warning Trump would be a dangerous commander in chief. Other top Republicans who say they will vote for Clinton include former President George H.W. Bush; former Virginia Sen. John Warner, a veteran of the Republican national security establishment; and Henry Paulson, a former Treasury secretary in George W. Bush’s administration. Clearly, this election is different.

When it comes to the future security of America — the most important issue of our time — Clinton is the candidate who makes the most sense.

This newspaper has not endorsed political candidates in the past. But this election is an exception. It’s not just about politics. It’s about character, competence and compassion. It’s about values that are American, and rooted in the Bible: Seeing all men and women as created in the image of God, having empathy for “the other” among us, recognizing the power of community, building bridges rather than walls.

We endorse Hillary Clinton not only because Donald Trump presents a danger to this country but because we believe she shares that biblical vision and strives for those goals. For the past year we have seen a Trump who believes his own lies, whose campaign is based on instilling fear in Americans, doubling down on divisions among us, describing virtually every aspect of society as broken, corrupt, defeated. He is too self-centered to listen to others, see beyond his own interests, or appreciate the need for self-reflection.

In his long career Trump has embodied only the first half of our sage Hillel’s famous adage: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? IfI am only for myself, what am I?”

We deserve more — for ourselves, and for others. We who have allowed our hearts to be hardened to the anguish of a Syrian refugee child, multiplied by the tens of thousands, need to open ourselves up to what we can accomplish as a caring society. Donald Trump is incapable of fulfilling such a vision; Hillary Clinton has the ability and promise to do so. That’s what can continue to make America great.

The Democratic nominee has pursued unaccountable power through secrecy—most evidently in the form of an email server designed to shield her communications while in public service, but also in lavishly compensated speeches, whose transcripts she refuses to release, to some of the most powerful representatives of the world system. She exemplifies the path to power preferred by the global technocratic elite—rooted in a rigorous control of one’s image and calculated disregard for norms that restrain less powerful actors. Such concentration of power, which is meant to shield the powerful from the vulnerability of accountability, actually creates far greater vulnerabilities, putting both the leader and the community in greater danger.

But because several of the Democratic candidate’s policy positions are so manifestly incompatible with Christian reverence for the lives of the most vulnerable, and because her party is so demonstrably hostile to expressions of traditional Christian faith, there is plenty of critique and criticism of the Democratic candidate from Christians, including evangelical Christians.

Most Christians who support Trump have done so with reluctant strategic calculation, largely based on the president’s power to appoint members of the Supreme Court. Important issues are indeed at stake, including the right of Christians and adherents of other religions to uphold their vision of sexual integrity and marriage even if they are in the cultural minority.

But there is a point at which strategy becomes its own form of idolatry—an attempt to manipulate the levers of history in favor of the causes we support. Strategy becomes idolatry, for ancient Israel and for us today, when we make alliances with those who seem to offer strength—the chariots of Egypt, the vassal kings of Rome—at the expense of our dependence on God who judges all nations, and in defiance of God’s manifest concern for the stranger, the widow, the orphan, and the oppressed. Strategy becomes idolatry when we betray our deepest values in pursuit of earthly influence. And because such strategy requires capitulating to idols and princes and denying the true God, it ultimately always fails.

Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord. They see that some of us are so self-interested, and so self-protective, that we will ally ourselves with someone who violates all that is sacred to us—in hope, almost certainly a vain hope given his mendacity and record of betrayal, that his rule will save us.

Editor's note: The Deseret News, although owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is not an official publication of the church. Editorial opinions reflect the views of the Deseret News.

The belief that the party and the platform matter more than the character of the candidate ignores the wisdom of the ages that, “when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2)

We understand that politicians and presidential candidates are human and that everyone makes mistakes. We do not believe that what is expressed in an unguarded moment of conversation should be the full measure of an individual. And we unquestionably support the principle that people deserve forgiveness, compassion and a second chance.

But history affirms that leaders' examples either elevate or demean the lives of those being led. When choosing the ostensible leader of the free world, the American electorate requires the clear assurance that their chosen candidate will consistently put the well-being of others ahead of his or her own personal gratification. The most recent revelations of Trump’s lewdness disturb us not only because of his vulgar objectification of women, but also because they poignantly confirm Trump’s inability to self-govern.

What oozes from this audio is evil. We hear a married man give smooth, smug and self-congratulatory permission to his intense impulses, allowing them to outweigh the most modest sense of decency, fidelity and commitment. And although it speaks volumes about sexual morality, it goes to the heart of all ethical behavior. Trump’s banter belies a willingness to use and discard other human beings at will. That characteristic is the essence of a despot.

Some will see our denunciation of Trump as tantamount to an endorsement of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That is not the case. Although she comes with extraordinary experience, Clinton promotes social and economic policies we cannot support and she too has a history of self-dealing that gives us significant pause.

Should Clinton prevail in this presidential contest, we trust she — and those in the Congress that hold the presidency in check — will recognize that her likely victory against a self-wounded candidate is not a mandate for her specific platform, but rather a repudiation of Trump’s flaws.

The mainstream media, the Liberals and the anti-American Republicans are working overtime making sure that Donald Trump, the only candidate that can save this nation from sure destruction, does not win the 2016 presidential race. They are counting on the public’s good heart and the trust you, as a nation, place in those advertisements, those radio or television commercials and the speeches that the volunteers knocking on doors may tell you in the last-minute desperate script written by some greedy
activist that most likely couldn’t care less about the results of the election — who wins and what type of future will ensue from the election results.
In this election the stakes are very high because the future of the country is at risk; the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and the only ones that will live to see it will be our children and grandchildren.
It is very important to take the reins of this election and accept the fact that the mainstream media, the Liberals and the anti-American Republicans are all in cahoots to keep ruling and enriching themselves at the expense of the citizens of this great nation. Why do the mainstream media, the Liberals and the anti-American Republicans keep banging on Obama’s birth certificate when Obama is not running in this election? What difference does it makes now after eight years of Obama’s regime?
If the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Justice Department (DOJ), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and any other government agency that is supposed to protect and serve the American people did not find a reason to be concerned or has allowed someone who may or may not be qualified to be our Commander In Chief during the last eight years, why be concerned now when his time is supposed to be over? Unless someone knows something that we all don’t know and will be surprised to know when it is too late.
We already know what a professional politician is looking for and what such a politician does best; we already know why they are fighting so furiously to keep Donald Trump from winning the election; they do not want to lose control of the money machine this country has become.
Donald Trump speaks our language, thinks, acts and behaves like we all do on a daily basis; how many times have we stated privately and publicly our urge to punch someone in the face but never take action?
Donald Trump is the candidate that can make America great again and we should put all of our personal feelings and reservations aside to make sure that the best candidate — Donald Trump — is our next president.
For one whole year the Las Vegas Tribune has been carrying a full-page advertisement for Donald Trump free of charge; we have never approached his campaign office or any of his family members that are clearly involved in the everyday operations of his campaign; we have
not patted ourselves on the back pretending to be generous when in reality all we want is what is best for our nation.

Donald Trump seems to enjoy being brash and blunt.

So, by all means, please allow us to return the favor.

We can in no way embrace, endorse or support Trump becoming the next president of the United States, and likewise call on all voters to adhere to the same philosophy come Nov. 8.

Don't take that stance as an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. That is an entirely different argument for a different day. We have our own issues with the Democratic nominee and her fitness for office.

However, this day is about joining the legion of voices and voters who have repudiated Trump and made it clear he belongs nowhere near the White House.

The storyline of a Washington outsider crashing the presidential party is over. Whatever good ideas Trump may have brought to the table during the primary season that allowed him to gain enough support to win the Republican nomination this summer have long since been displaced by heinous remarks, gaffes and ideologies that leave us wondering how he even got this far in the first place.

How can anyone support a presidential candidate who has bullied and threatened immigrants en masse, adherents of a major world religion and, as evidenced by the release of audio tapes this past week, an entire gender?

We understand that even the most noble of candidates, under the white-hot spotlight of a national presidential campaign, might occasionally put their foot in their mouth, or offer up information that is not the most factually accurate.

It's another story to put forth a platform that revels in bullying, violence, threatening to abolish freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution and advocating criminal behavior in the treatment of women.

It would be easy to make the case for voting for Hillary Clinton for president simply by pointing out that her Republican opponent is demonstrably unfit for the job.

But we are not just holding our nose and saying, “Anyone but Donald Trump.” We think Hillary Clinton is the right person for the job this time around. She will make a better president today than she would have when she ran eight years ago, or even eight months ago. She is the best person for the nation, and that includes places like West Virginia. In fact, part of her improvement is because of places like West Virginia.

By now, her accomplishments are well-known. Most recently she served as secretary of state, where she negotiated a treaty with Iran that delays that nation’s nuclear development and buys the West access. She was a senator from New York on Sept. 11, 2001, and championed the needs of that city, including its first responders. Her Senate tenure earns her praise from both Democrats and Republicans. Going further back and perhaps closer to home, Hillary Clinton helped to establish the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides insurance coverage to children of low-income working parents. She started out as a lawyer with the Children’s Defense Fund, where she worked to uncover and end discrimination against children. Of course, Americans first got to know her as first lady during her husband’s presidency.

Leave out being first lady if you think that doesn’t count. It does, especially the way Hillary did it, more in the style of Eleanor Roosevelt than most presidential spouses of her time. But set it aside and look at the rest of her experience. By any measure, she is qualified to be president, certainly the most qualified of any candidate in this election. More qualified, Bill Clinton said, than either he or Barack Obama when they asked Americans for their votes.

Yet, there is something else. Hillary has blue-collar roots, from growing up as the daughter of a drapery maker in small-town Illinois, to representing not only urban but also rural New York state. She has spent time in communities like the ones all over West Virginia. That’s not a requirement to be a good president, but it is a comfort when it happens. We liked Obama when he ran, even though we knew his appreciation of places like our hometowns was distant.

Hillary’s connection is more direct, more first-hand and more up-to-date. That is one of the things that is so appealing about her now, and for that, we may have Sen. Bernie Sanders partly to thank.

When Hillary Clinton decided not to concede West Virginia to Sen. Sanders without a fight in the Democratic primary, she visited, and she didn’t just go to easy places. She took the criticism (and praise) and the honest frustration that people unloaded on her. She absorbed it all with grace and agreed, something must be done. She had already offered a proposal to help distressed communities and displaced workers to reinvent themselves, an investment of infrastructure and entrepreneurship projects similar to President Obama’s Power PLUS Initiative, long overdue.