The editors of The Spectrum endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president.
She is the most qualified candidate on the ticket and is the pragmatic choice to move America, and democracy, forward from an ugly election cycle.
We didn’t come to this conclusion hastily. The staff deliberated over a few items in particular during an hours-long meeting: whether we should endorse any candidate at all, whether we should endorse or denounce a candidate and which candidate we’d pick.
Our staff had several dissenting thoughts pertaining to the candidates, with all in agreement that no candidate perfectly matched our respective views. In the end, our staff had a poll to endorse a candidate among Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
Clinton received the most votes.
We ultimately decided to take a stand because history has its eyes on us. The unprecedented nature of this election has left us wanting to be seen standing up instead of sitting down.
It would be easier to not endorse as some newspapers, including The Forum, have chosen to do. If we kept quiet, The Spectrum wouldn’t likely lose right-leaning advertisers, and we wouldn’t receive the cold comments this endorsement will probably attract.
Practicing democracy, and standing up for convictions, takes grit.
We are endorsing because apathy and learned helplessness should not be condoned. We believe inaction is an action, a non-vote is a vote and a non-endorsement to be an endorsement.
Choosing “none of the above,” like The Forum’s editorial board writes, isn’t addressing our system’s flaws. “None of the above” is like penciling in an E-bubble when the test choices are only A, B, C or D.
Our system and its candidates have their faults, but we must take the good with the bad and move forward, ballot in hand. Accepting nihilism today because of personal qualms is not productive for American democracy.
We also decided endorsing, not denouncing, would be more engaging for our readers. We want our opinion to spark a productive debate. Muckraking Clinton, Trump or third-party nominees would be easy enough, but wouldn’t build a productive conversation.
Mudslinging makes for impassioned banter, but focusing on the negatives of candidates makes for pathetic (i.e., emotionally saturated) rants that lead to bickering.
We don’t need any more emotion in this election; we need logic, and Clinton is the logical vote.
Disagree with us? Let’s talk credentials and policy.
Clinton is a former Secretary of State and U.S. senator. She has negotiated legislation with Congress in D.C. and ceasefires in Israel. She has a public servant record that spans decades and is, arguably, more historically centrist than Trump, Johnson or Stein.
We could fill the page with Clinton’s political accomplishments. The same cannot be said about her opponents.
Still not sold? Been told to vote your conscience?
Voting your conscience still requires citizens to vote. If you personally can’t stomach any candidate, perhaps consider how candidates would affect others, especially the marginalized.
Yes, many of us on campus would have preferred to have different names on the ballot, but that will not deter us from the polling booths.
The Spectrum split its ticket in 2008, endorsing Democrat Barack Obama for president but Republicans for regional elections. We didn’t find an endorsement from 2012.
Today, though, the choice is clear:
We’re with her.