See Disclaimer.
The Washington Post (WP) decision to no longer make political endorsements, and thus to not publish an already drafted endorsement of Kamala Harris, is unconscionable.
I lean independent and favor a multi-party system. But, this election, my path is clear (as it was in 2016 and 2020): This is no time to sit on the sidelines. I will vote and endorse Harris and a Democratic Congress, to give country and world a chance, and our grandkids a future. I hope that a large enough majority of Americans will, too: There is (unfortunately) little room for indecision or ‘principled’ votes for minor candidates or write-ins.
Since my 2020 series “Letters to an unfit president”, the case against Donald Trump has only grown stronger. His authoritarianism and lack of character alone are disqualifying. Reasonable concerns exist about his rate of cognitive decline and what that will mean for a new 4-year term. His policy ‘substance’ falls short of what should be a minimum threshold for a presidential candidate. His inability to accept any reality he does not like (such as losing the 2020 election) and his systemic smear and misinformation campaigns, are abhorrent in (and a danger to) democracy.
The case for electing Harris is clear. The vote for her and against Trump is an existential imperative, on the grounds of climate, national security, and so much more. Trump’s unfitness for office has been stated widely, by people from a broad range of political perspectives. Even people who worked under Trump in the White House say so. Liz Cheney and other staunch conservatives warn us about it. Conservative national security experts want us to know it. Even Mitch McConnel knows it, even if he does not act on it. We should listen, especially when Trump own words tell the story.
Washington Post: How can you choose this year (this year!) and this time (days from Nov 5!) to stop endorsing candidates?
Even if media endorsements have less impact than in the past, the WP abruptly cutting with the newspaper’s editorial practice since1976 is itself consequential. As much as the timing of the decision is deplorable, the manner is worse. According to the New York Times, it was the owner of the WP who made the decision to not publish an already drafted editorial endorsing Harris. Respected WP opinion writers, collectively and individually, promptly repudiated the decision.
Especially in the wake of an eerily similar suppression at the LA Times, the unpublished WP editorial inevitably raises the spectrum of internal censorship. Could this be the beginning of a broader attack on freedom of the press? Was it driven by fear of political retribution? Time will tell. But, for the moment, this is certainly unsettling. And disturbingly ironic, given the WP’s own slogan: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”
— Antonio Baptista
Outside the box 
3 Comments