- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,936
- 10,826
- 147
For only the third time in its 159 year history, The Atlantic (a great magazine, btw) has been moved to make a political endorsement, Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.
The other two were Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Lyndon Johnson, 53 years ago, in 1964.
Of Lincoln they wrote, “It is in a moral aversion to slavery as a great wrong that the chief strength of the Republican party lies.”
Of Lyndon Johnson they wrote that he would bring, " to the vexed problem of civil rights a power of conciliation which will prevent us from stumbling down the road taken by South Africa.”
But what also moved them to endorse Johnson in 1964 was their deep distrust and dislike of Goldwater's positions:
“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.”
They went on to say:
Today they have endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton:
And had this to say about The Donald:
And, finally:
Hear, hear, good sirs! In defense of our American democracy, I, too, will be voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The other two were Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Lyndon Johnson, 53 years ago, in 1964.
Of Lincoln they wrote, “It is in a moral aversion to slavery as a great wrong that the chief strength of the Republican party lies.”
Of Lyndon Johnson they wrote that he would bring, " to the vexed problem of civil rights a power of conciliation which will prevent us from stumbling down the road taken by South Africa.”
But what also moved them to endorse Johnson in 1964 was their deep distrust and dislike of Goldwater's positions:
“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.”
They went on to say:
We think it unfortunate that Barry Goldwater takes criticism as a personal affront; [sound familiar?] we think it poisonous when his anger betrays him into denouncing what he calls the “radical” press by bracketing the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Izvestia. [again, sound familiar?] There speaks not the reason of the Southwest but the voice of Joseph McCarthy. We do not impugn Senator Goldwater’s honesty. We sincerely distrust his factionalism and his capacity for judgment.
Today they have endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but 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.
And had this to say about The Donald:
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.
And, finally:
"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."
Hear, hear, good sirs! In defense of our American democracy, I, too, will be voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
