The Washington Post editorial board — more likely the management above it — has announced it will not endorse a presidential candidate in this year’s historic election.
William Lewis, publisher and CEO, wrote in a note from the publisher,
We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.
Lewis, with The Post for just a year, ironically justifies the decision by implying a long history of the Post not making endorsements in presidential elections:
We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.
Correction: In my original post, I wrote that the exceptions to not making endorsements were for Eisenhower in 1956 and Jimmy Carter in 1975. Fact checked by Perplexity Al,
The Washington Post has had a varied history of presidential endorsements since 1960:
1960-1972: The Post did not endorse presidential candidates during this period.
1976-2020: The Post endorsed presidential candidates in every election during this period. Specifically, the Post endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976, marking the beginning of their modern endorsement era. From 1976 through 2020, the paper consistently endorsed presidential candidates. In 2020, the Post endorsed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
I was too young to recall Eisenhower’s election, but I have followed every election since, beginning with Kennedy’s in 1960. This election is by far the most dangerous to American democracy of any in my lived experience. That The Post should ignore this and hide behind a so-called long tradition of independence is unconscionable.
Lewis also seems to confuse a newspaper’s editorial and news functions. The news side is supposed to be neutral, just reporting the facts, while the editorial side is supposed to argue positions, providing a variety of voices. The editorial board making a recommendation based on its collective judgment is expected. If that’s out of line, then the editorial board should not make recommendations on any topic.
Lewis argues we readers are best left to make up our own minds, implying we won’t if we see an endorsement from The Post. I assure you we will, although we will consider the collective wisdom of the editorial team, which offers much more access to and history with the candidates.
Lewis further claims the Post stands for “character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.” Donald Trump as president and candidate violates all these values, surely justification for the Post to take a stand.
At least acknowledging that the decision will be criticized, Lewis writes,
We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility.
It surely is an abdication of responsibility, and I suspect it’s a political move to appease a man who has promised revenge and retribution should he be reelected.
The Post should recognize the risk to the country after the chaos of Trump’s presidency, his denial that he lost, his demonizing rhetoric during this campaign, and the comprehensive plans of Project 2025. By not being clear about this choice, the management of The Washington Post is blowing out the light that you claim protects democracy.
I have cancelled my subscription to the newspaper.
