The Economist Endorses Clinton By Saying They Wou
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 11/03/2016 11:40:33 PM
Quote:
The Economist Endorses Clinton By Saying They Would Rather Vote For Nixon Than Trump
By Sarah Jones on Thu, Nov 3rd, 2016 at 10:01 am
The Economist endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying they would rather vote for Nixon even knowing how it would end than vote for Donald Trump.
They also endorse the Democratic Party down ballot, saying it's time for Republicans to lose Congress so that they can begin the process of reforming their broken party.
The Economist endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying they would rather vote for Nixon even knowing how it would end than vote for Donald Trump. They also endorse the Democratic Party down ballot, saying it’s time for Republicans to lose Congress so that they can begin the process of reforming their broken party.
“The choice is not hard. The campaign has provided daily evidence that Mr Trump would be a terrible president,” the Economist‘s endorsement opens.
They cite reasons for finding Trump temperamentally unfit to lead and note “As it happens, he has a set of policies to go with his personality.”
Such as, “A Trump government would cut taxes for the richest while imposing trade protection that would raise prices for the poorest. We disagree with him on the environment, immigration, America’s role in the world and other things besides.
His ideas on revenue and spending are an affront to statistics. We would sooner have endorsed Richard Nixon—even had we known how he would later come to grief.”
It’s not just that Donald Trump is so awful that they would rather vote for Nixon even knowing how it would end. “Mrs Clinton is a better candidate than she seems and better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics than her critics will admit. She also deserves to prevail on her own merits.”
While they disagree with Clinton on her tax plan and other policies, they call many of Clinton’s policies manifestations of “the pragmatic centre of the Democratic Party.”
They note she’s an “incrementalist”, observing one of her weaknesses as a campaigner is actually a strength in governing.
They write that she is capable of handling the greatest power a president has, and that is foreign policy. They note, “So judgment and experience are essential and, despite Republican attempts to tarnish her over an attack in Benghazi in 2012, Mrs Clinton possesses both.”
And in what might be the most damning and acutely accurate assessment of the Trump problem for conservatives, they say of the nihilistic, anarchistic style embraced by Trump supporters, “To hope that any good can come from Mr Trump’s wrecking job reflects a narcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrong.”
Lastly, it’s not enough just to vote for Hillary Clinton and then vote Republican down ballot. They say it’s time for Republicans to lose Congress in order for the party to reform.
“Hence our vote goes to both Mrs Clinton and her party.”
It’s official; the Democratic Party is the party of pragmatic, intellectual grown ups. They earned this the hard way, through diligent self-monitoring, temperance, prudence, moderation and cooperation.
It is, however, bad for the country to have only one party governing and it places an even higher burden on Democrats to outperform and self-regulate, because the fate of the country rests on their shoulders; they will get no help from modern Republicans.
(1)
(0)