On Nov. 8, American voters will go to the polls with the responsibility of choosing the individual who will be our nation’s chief executive.
It is an office that is not only legislative, but symbolic as well. Our president sets the tone for foreign and domestic policy, nominates judges to our highest court to steer our legal standards, selects members of the Federal Reserve Board who will have far-reaching effects on our economy and serves as commander-in-chief of our military. The person we choose as our president is also a reflection of how we see ourselves as a nation, the public face we show the rest of the world.
The values that we, as Americans, look for in our leaders are diverse. They are founded on principles that are rooted in the timeless story told at the new American Revolution Museum at Yorktown, encompassing personal freedom and equality for all citizens.
Each time the Daily Press Editorial Board prepares an endorsement, whether for the Oval Office or for a local school board, we are guided by our mission to be a clear and reasoned voice in our community.
Our philosophy has always been that less is more when it comes to government involvement in our businesses and our personal lives. We believe in fiscal conservatism and a broad interpretation of rights for all citizens and we have shared that sentiment often on these pages.
This First Amendment exercise is even more important today, when we face a fundamental examination of what our country stands for. This is the rare election wherein there is truly a clear-cut right thing to do — and it stands as a watershed moment in our nation’s history.
For decades, our presidential endorsements have gone to candidates who have embraced the fiscally conservative ideals that we prefer. In fact, starting with our endorsement of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the only Democrat we have endorsed for president has been John Kerry in 2004.
But in recent years we have seen extreme factions gain a foothold inside the Republican party and watched too many of its representatives being herded toward divisive and untenable social policies that overshadow the fiscal efficiency that has been the party’s flagship. Ultimately that shift led to the selection of Donald J. Trump as the party’s standard bearer.
Here is a candidate who has said he doesn’t trust the generals who guide our military. He has mocked the parents of a dead soldier due to their Muslim faith. And he has belittled John McCain’s heroic resistance as a prisoner of war.
Add to that this disturbing episode surrounding a 2005 recording of Mr. Trump boasting to a TV reporter about forcing himself physically on unwilling women. The obvious pride he expressed in these actions was offensive on its own; his subsequent dismissal of those comments as harmless locker-room banter simply made it worse.
An entire editorial could be dedicated to reasons he should not be a candidate for any public office and in fact, we have done that in the past. The closest Mr. Trump has come to discussing an actual workable policy is a trade proposal that would be anathema to a region such as ours that is heavily dependent upon international commerce. When he has attempted to raise significant issues, such as tax reform or veterans care, he has quickly undercut his own causes with shameful behavior and bellicose utterances.
We think of our president as the leader of the free world, the person whose job is to give voice and vision to American values around the globe. As commander in chief, the president’s decisions affect countless military families who are the foundation of this very community. This man is unfit to hold the title of president of the United States. To even think of giving that title and that power to Mr. Trump would be comical if it weren’t so terrifying. No living American has seen a more appalling or frightening presidential candidate put forth by a major party.
We urge civic-minded voters to turn away from the deeply troubling vision that Mr. Trump offers.
That is why we are endorsing Hillary Clinton, who stands as the only candidate with at least the potential to be an effective president.
Despite our serious reservations, we recognize that Ms. Clinton has a strong background for the office of president. She served two terms as a U.S. senator from New York and four years as secretary of state under President Barack Obama. Before that she was the most politically active first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. This background, including service on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, would provide a foundation for work as this country’s chief executive.
Let’s be clear about our stand.
Ms. Clinton’s political resume also comes with a collection of negative baggage that would have derailed most campaigns before they even began, reflective of her tendency to bend, stretch, twist and reinterpret laws as she sees fit. Most recently, her integrity has been called into question over the State Department’s response to the deadly 2012 attack on our embassy in Benghazi and over her much-discussed lapse in judgment by using a personal nonsecure email server to handle classified documents.
These topics have been investigated ad infinitum; a Republican-led committee found no wrongdoing on her part related to Benghazi and the FBI determined that her email episode, while unethical, violated no laws and could not be prosecuted.
It is a lot for any candidate to overcome and we cannot overstate how unacceptable we view this at any level of government. Behavior such as this goes against all that we believe in as it relates to our unwavering dedication to transparency and access to information. Our presidential candidates must be held to a higher ethical standard than “not enough to merit federal charges.”
And yes, there are other options. Three other candidates on Virginia’s ballot — Libertarian Gary Johnson, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and #nevertrump conservative Evan McMullin — hold appeal for voters who see Mr. Trump for what he is and who cannot bring themselves to vote for Ms. Clinton.
We considered this in our discussions, but in the end determined that a vote for one of them is either a quixotic act of conscience or a shout of protest aimed at two parties that are not listening. To vote for Mr. Johnson, Ms. Stein or Mr. McMullin because you truly embrace his or her values would be consistent with the spirit of our democratic process; to vote for one of them simply as a protest would be as much of a cop-out as not voting at all.
So we are left with the only choice we believe is best for our country.
If Ms. Clinton wins the White House on Nov. 8, we hope (but do not expect) Mr. Trump will display a modicum of grace. We hope his most enthusiastic supporters will accept the outcome of the election, even if grudgingly, and refuse to buy into his ludicrous conspiracy theories. These irresponsible accusations, along with his threat to imprison Ms. Clinton if he wins the election, endanger our nation’s foundation and threaten to hurl the country into chaos.
We think back to the visionaries who molded our democracy — including Virginians such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry – and we find it hard to draw a line through our nation’s history that could start with them and somehow arrive at a scenario whereby Mr. Trump could get this close to the presidency by playing to the worst instincts of those who would support him.
Our Constitution’s visionaries chose the words that outlined the ideals at the foundation of our nation with painstaking deliberation, and at times the debates grew contentious. But with a profound understanding of how much was truly at stake, they worked relentlessly to find common ground. Such phrases as “painstaking deliberation” and “profound understanding” have no place in the lexicon used to describe Mr. Trump’s petty and impetuous leadership posturing.
If Ms. Clinton wins, we hope she will pursue a course of moderate economic policies, including an overhaul of her predecessor’s signature health care plan, a well-intended but cumbersome hodge-podge of policies that was hashed out in secret, passed by legislators who did not read it, and — to the surprise of no one — created as many problems as it solved.
And finally, if Ms. Clinton wins, we hope she will surround herself with astute advisers in this increasingly volatile world. Ideally these advisers would be drawn from both sides of the political aisle to offer a diverse and comprehensive approach to policy. The “team of rivals” approached served President Abraham Lincoln well, and in today’s bitterly divided atmosphere, Ms. Clinton should embrace that model.
This consideration is even more important in our region, with our shipyards, military installations and veterans hospitals. We need national leadership that will keep our military strong and ready; be judicious about when and where to use military force; provide the best mental and physical care possible for our cherished veterans; and keep our defense industry viable without turning it into a financial boondoggle.
Previous Daily Press Editorial Boards have not always been on the right side of racial historical debates, dating back to Massive Resistance and the battle for Civil Rights. We cannot go back and correct those wrongheaded stances, but we can make sure that we stand against Mr. Trump’s inflammatory and harmful candidacy. There is no specific policy that can treat or cure the racial anger that has begun to spread in our country. That change will have to come from the citizens themselves, especially in communities such as Newport News and Hampton, where minorities are now the majority. But the president can help establish a tone. We hope to see programs that will better prepare diverse police forces to resolve local incidents in a manner that unites rather than incites.
With so many issues, both foreign and domestic, it will fall to the next president to begin the process of uniting our nation. Despite her flaws, there can be no question that Ms. Clinton is better suited for that task.
In a 1992 speech, former Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall warned: “Democracy cannot flourish amid fear. Liberty cannot bloom amid hate. Justice cannot take root amid rage.” On that day he observed that our government and our legal system can open doors and knock down walls, but that the task of building bridges falls to us as Americans.
That is what is at stake on Election Day — and afterward.
We as Americans deserve better than what this election has given us and we must recognize the role we have played — whether tacit or aggressive — in bringing it to this point. We must remember the hard lessons of 2016 the next time we go to choose our leaders.
Until then, we hope that if Ms. Clinton wins she will begin every day by reflecting on the premise described by one of her most prominent predecessors in that Oval Office: “Government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
