Foreign Policy magazine has endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time in its roughly 50 years of publishing, and has chosen Hillary Clinton.
“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,” the editors wrote. “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.”
After spending much of the piece condemning Trump as “the worst major-party candidate this republic has ever produced,” the editors praised Clinton as “one of the best qualified candidates the country has produced since World War II.” They said that throughout her long political career, Clinton has “regularly distinguished herself by her intelligence, dogged work ethic, ability to work across the political aisle, and leadership on difficult issues.”
“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,” they said.
The editors slammed Trump for his praise of Russian president Vladimir Putin and “fear mongering” about Muslims, which they argue has “played into the hands of terrorists.” They said the Republican presidential nominee “has promoted a delusional and narcissistic view of the world, one in which he seems to feel that the power of his personality in negotiations could redirect the course of other nations, remake or supplant treaties, and contain those tyrants he does not actually embrace.”
The piece concluded that if Clinton is elected the country’s first female president, “she will be righting a deep wrong that has compromised U.S. democracy since its inception: the exclusion of women from its highest offices” before adding that a Trump administration would be comparatively “grotesque and deeply disturbing.”
“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,” they said.
