The Atlantic had endorsed only two presidential candidates since its founding in 1860: Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon B. Johnson.
On Wednesday, the 156-year-old publication added a third name to that list when it announced its endorsement of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Recommended Stories
“We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others,” the magazine’s editorial board wrote, “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.”
Though the Atlantic argued Clinton has earned the right to be a serious White House contender, the board also concede she has “some legitimately troubling” shortcomings.
Still, they continued, she is manifestly qualified for the role, and a much better option than GOP nominee Donald Trump.
“Trump … has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office,” they wrote. “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 board added.
In fact, they continued, Trump disqualified himself years ago before he even ran for president when he embraced conspiracy theories alleging President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.
“Our endorsement of Clinton, and rejection of Trump, is not a blanket dismissal of the many Trump supporters who are motivated by legitimate anxieties about their future and their place in the American economy,” they wrote. “But Trump has seized on these anxieties and inflamed and racialized them, without proposing realistic policies to address them.”
The board stressed that it has no desire to advance the electoral goals of any party. They also said that were it a matchup between Clinton and any of the previous GOP nominees, they would have sat out this election per their usual.
“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,” the Atlantic’s editorial board concluded.
With its endorsement of Clinton, the Atlantic adds to this year’s trend of newsrooms breaking longstanding traditions to pull for the Democratic nominee.
On Sept. 30, the San Diego Union-Tribune announced its support for Clinton, breaking its 148-year-old tradition of never supporting a Democratic candidate for president.
On Sept. 29, USA Today encouraged voters to back anyone but Trump, breaking its 34-year history of taking no side in presidential elections. USA Today did not endorse Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, the Green Party’s Jill Stein or independent candidate Evan McMullin. Rather, its message to readers was: Vote for anyone but the GOP nominee.
On Sept. 27, the Arizona Republic backed Clinton over Trump, marking the first time since it started printing newspapers in 1890 that it had chosen a Democrat over a Republican.
On Sept. 23, the Cincinnati Enquirer shattered a nearly century-old tradition of backing only Republicans for president when it threw its support behind the Democratic nominee.
On Sept. 7, the Dallas Morning News did likewise, and ended its 75-year streak of endorsing only GOP candidates for president.
