The New York Times editorial board on Monday endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, calling her “the only patriotic choice for president” while painting a grim picture of a second term for former President Donald Trump.
Rather than praise for its preferred candidate, the board led its endorsement of Harris by listing off disqualifying arguments against Trump. “It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States,” the Times editorial board wrote.
“This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election,” the board, made up of 14 opinion journalists, wrote. “For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.”
The endorsement of Harris is unsurprising — the editorial board has not backed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 — though still important given the paper’s influence. In July, 10 days before President Joe Biden left the race (and after the board called on him to do so), the board published a five-part, scathing editorial against Trump that struck many of the same chords as Monday’s story.
Monday’s endorsement calls Harris, in stark contrast to its descriptions of Trump, a “dedicated public servant” who is “more than a necessary alternative.” The board focuses on Harris’ plans for the economy, health care, foreign policy and immigration as reasons for electing her over Trump.
And while the board admitted some of Harris’ plans are not as detailed as voters would like, there are more “clear dangers” of a second Trump presidency, citing his refusal to accept the results of the last election (and potentially the upcoming one), and his promises to use the government to attack his political enemies. “Unless American voters stand up to him, Mr. Trump will have the power to do profound and lasting harm to our democracy,” they write.
There were some positives during Trump’s first term, the board writes, “Yet even when the former president’s overall aim may have had merit, his operational incompetence, his mercurial temperament and his outright recklessness often led to bad outcomes.”
For those reasons, they write, “Kamala Harris is the only choice.”
