Democratic vice presidential running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, left, and Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris
Associated Press Photos
We have made no secret of our opinion regarding the qualifications of Donald Trump for president of the United States. We repeatedly declared him unfit for the office before he won it in 2016, and at numerous occasions during his presidency we condemned his actions and his behaviors. In the four years since he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden, we continued to express our disapproval of him — from his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, to his ongoing attacks on election security, the justice system and other fundamental American institutions of government to his own convictions in criminal and civil cases.
Trump supporters tend to cite the volume of legal, political and social controversies surrounding him as evidence that “the system” is out to get him and declare its leaders will do anything to keep him out of office. Another way to look at those controversies, however, is to recognize that they are based in verifiable fact, supported by reams of evidence and represent a profound statement on his unfitness for office.
That is and has been our position. And, now as he brandishes a Supreme Court ruling on immunity that gives him all but unchecked power, he presents the prospect of even greater instability and division for a democracy in deep need of the opposite.
So, it will come as no surprise to those who have followed our commentaries that we cannot endorse him for a second term as the nation’s president and the most powerful leader in the free world. The question then becomes can we and do we endorse his Democratic rival Kamala Harris?
We answer yes with confidence, but not without reservation.
In the five months since she replaced Joe Biden as her party’s standard-bearer in the campaign for the presidency, Harris has demonstrated a strong foundation in the key issues facing the country — particularly, the economy, immigration and foreign policy — and an ability to articulate positions firmly and clearly. In building a campaign infrastructure almost from scratch following Biden’s wise but late decision to step away from the race, she has shown the ability to organize and lead a complex political operation, promoting confidence in her ability to build a government leadership team capable of effectively managing the serious domestic and foreign matters already confronting the nation.
Her choice of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as a running mate is further evidence of her ability to recognize character and establish a spirit of enthusiasm and determination toward solving problems. She and Walz are correct in observing that too much of our government’s time in recent years has been spent belittling America and too little in uplifting the nation’s immense capacity for cooperative achievement.
She shows unquestionable potential for developing a successful administration and reinforcing the nation’s respect for itself.
But the active word there is “potential.” Despite Biden’s previous assertions that as vice president, Harris is qualified, ready and able to serve as president, Americans have had precious few opportunities to see her in the types of circumstances that would give them the same level of confidence. And some that bring pause.
She indeed may not have been the “immigration czar” Republicans have claimed, but she was given substantial authority to influence immigration policy, and the border chaos that defined much of the Biden-Harris term in office did not suggest a clear, effective strategy, until Biden imposed by executive order many of the directives of a bipartisan legislative effort that failed when Trump ordered his party to oppose it on political grounds.
She demonstrates some insight toward managing economic issues, but also offers eyebrow-raising ideas like a $25,000 handout to first-time home buyers and $50,000 subsidies to business startups that sound more like tempting campaign promises than workable federal policy. She says that recent policy changes on matters such as fracking, criminal justice and Mideast policy represent refinements of her ideas rather than departures from her core values, but again, such broad pronouncements do not inspire confidence that we know specifically how she would act to promote those values.
Granted, the abrupt nature of her campaign is a legitimate obstacle for her. But she would have done well — and could still do well — to sit down for more pointed and challenging interviews to defend her ideas and better define them for American voters.
So, concerns such as these make it hard to express unqualified support for a Harris presidency. But they also amount to uncomfortable questions rather than serious doubts. In the limited interviews she has done, in her effective performance in the one debate held with former President Trump and in other acts and statements on the campaign, she has shown strength, intelligence, compassion and a commitment to cooperative, productive government.
Beyond that, perhaps the most appealing aspect of her candidacy is its positive energy. Since the time we refrained from endorsing Bill Clinton for a second presidential term in 1996, we have upheld the notion that an organization is a reflection of the spirit and values at the top. We had decisive concerns about the values Clinton represented in 1996. We have great reservations about the values Donald Trump has represented throughout his political career.
But Harris and Walz present the face of optimism, enthusiasm, faith, determination and cooperation. These are the qualities that define the highest aspirations of our country and offer the best hope for its future.
With them in mind, we confidently issue our endorsement for the Harris-Walz ticket, and look forward to the prosperity and accomplishment it could help foster in the next four years.