Foreign Policy magazine has, for the first time in its half-century history, endorsed a candidate for president of the United States.
While the magazine and its columnists are anything but leftist, they have repudiated Donald Trump and endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The FP endorsement begins with a truly scathing indictment of everything that is Donald Trump.
The dangers Trump presents as president stretch beyond the United States to the international economy, to global security, to America’s allies, as well as to countless innocents everywhere who would be the victims of his inexperience, his perverse policy views, and the profound unsuitability of his temperament for the office he seeks.
The litany of reasons Trump poses such a threat is so long that it is, in fact, shocking that he is a major party’s candidate for the presidency. The recent furor over his vile behavior with women illustrates the extraordinary nature of his unsuitability, as does his repudiation by so many members of his own party — who have so many reasons to reflexively support their nominee.
Beyond this, however, in the areas in which we at FP specialize, he has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of the most basic facts of international affairs, let alone the nuances so crucial to the responsibilities of diplomacy inherent in the U.S. president’s daily responsibilities. Trump has not only promoted the leadership of a tyrant and menace like Vladimir Putin, but he has welcomed Russian meddling in the current U.S. election. He has alternatively forgiven then defended Russia’s invasion of Crimea and employed advisors with close ties to the Russian president and his cronies. Trump has spoken so cavalierly about the use of nuclear weapons, including a repeated willingness to use them against terrorists, that it has become clear he understands little if anything about America's nuclear policies — not to mention the moral, legal, and human consequences of such actions. He has embraced the use of torture and the violation of international law against it. He has suggested he would ignore America’s treaty obligations and would only conditionally support allies in need.
He has repeatedly denigrated the U.S. military — its leadership, service members, veterans, and the families who stand behind them. He has also derided the intelligence community. Many of the most prominent Republican national security and foreign-policy specialists have repudiated him publicly. Indeed, he is not simply seen as a dangerous candidate by members of the Democratic Party, but virtually no single credible GOP foreign-policy advisor has joined his team. This is because Trump either undercuts or has placed himself in opposition to the best foreign-policy traditions of the Republican Party and to the standards and ideals of every GOP administration in modern history.
He would therefore put at risk our way of life, our freedoms, and our alliances. His reckless behavior has already undermined America’s standing internationally. His proposed embrace of some bad actors and his provocations toward others, his dangerous views on the use of weapons of mass destruction, his failure to understand how the global economy works, his lack of appreciation for the importance of alliances, and his temperamental defects all suggest that were he to claim the Oval Office, he would be a destabilizing force that would undercut American leadership instantly and for generations to come.His spotty track record as a businessman compounds these flaws further still.
---- Now, for all of you pretend progressives who see a nullifying equivalency between Clinton and Trump, it's time to put your conspiracy theories back in your toy box and under your bed.
Fortunately, not only is Trump opposed by a worthy candidate, but his opponent is, on foreign-policy and national security issues — all of the areas we cover here at FP — one of the best qualified candidates this country has produced since World War II. As first lady, New York senator, and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton regularly distinguished herself by her intelligence, dogged work ethic, ability to work across the political aisle, and leadership on difficult issues. She has devoted her entire life to public service and has been a powerful and effective advocate for women, children, and those in need at home and abroad. 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.
Hillary Clinton is a quality candidate who is unquestionably well-prepared to lead this country. What is more, we do not think it is a small thing that by her election she will be righting a deep wrong that has compromised U.S. democracy since its inception: the exclusion of women from its highest offices. 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.
"Trump has not only promoted the leadership of a tyrant and menace like Vladimir Putin, but he has welcomed Russian meddling in the current U.S. election."
Sounds like a neocon rag. There's no evidence the DNC Wikileaks (that exposed anti-Bernie corruption during the Democratic primaries) were the result of Russian hackers. No one even knows if they were hacked or simply leaked by an insider.
It's also absurd to suggest that leaks that inform voters about a candidate are somehow interfering in the election the candidate is running in.
This 'Foreign Policy' rag seems to know absolutely nothing about the history and present state of US foreign policy, which is filled with examples of Americans backing tyrants. Right now the Saudis are killing civilians in Yemen with US (and Canadian) arms.
I wish you showed any sign that you had read Foreign Policy or any similar journal of professional thought but plainly you haven't. It's on the incredible strength of your ignorance that you can call it a "rag." Your lack of mental coherence is evident in your proclivity for merging issues that are unrelated, conflating them into your personal style of babble. Now, as I've said before, there are plenty of sites where you can shop your brand of shit and will be appreciated for it. Just not here.
Well, I know a moderate amount about the journal "Foreign Policy" and I would certainly agree it's not a "rag". It is, however, roughly equivalent in terms of the US-and-lackeys foreign policy establishment to the role of "The Economist" for the money establishment. That is, it occasionally says some of the truths that elites need to know in order to govern effectively, but is generally committed to elite rule and American empire, in that order. "Foreign Policy" liking someone is no more a recommendation than Benjamin Netanyahu liking someone. And that Anonymous' quote is telling--why just a bit further up the page, you yourself point out in graphic form the efforts being made to condition us to war with Russia; "Foreign Policy" is clearly an enthusiastic part of those efforts. And yet suddenly when they back your horse you value their hawkish opinion?
Incidentally, I think you should perhaps tone down the name-calling. As I recall, last election you eventually plumped for Trudeau, at which point anyone who didn't back Trudeau was a fake progressive or brainwashed or whatever. You don't seem so pleased with him now. Perhaps sometimes, someone with an opinion different from yours might have reasons other than being a fake.
There's a difference between an informed, contrary opinion - such as those I regularly entertain from you and others, PLG - and a troll. You should perhaps keep that in mind.
Post a Comment