Why we're endorsing for president

Peter Bhatia is editor and vice president for audience engagement at The Enquirer/Cincinnati.com. He can be reached at 513-768-8551 or pbhatia@enquirer.com

Election endorsements are a thing of the past, it has been argued on many fronts, given the changing nature of politics and the myriad sources of information that are available today to any voter.

I actually agree with that point of view, although I still believe it is important for the editorial pages of newspapers to take strong stands for the benefit of the communities we serve. Many papers have chosen not to endorse in national races any longer. They don't feel their views are relevant.

So how do you reconcile those competing views and our endorsement today in the presidential race? Sometimes, as is the case here, the issues at stake are of such consequence that The Enquirer, as a citizen of Ohio and the region, must take a strong stand on what its editorial board believes is right.

The decision to endorse Hillary Clinton for president, eloquently written by Associate Opinion Editor Kevin Aldridge, is the unanimous opinion of the five members of the editorial board. The board, on which I serve, does not take votes. We make decisions by consensus, and we will arrive at consensus for endorsements in several other races in the coming weeks. These include Ohio's U.S. Senate seat, the Hamilton County commissioners and sheriff, and local ballot measures on Cincinnati school funding (including Preschool Promise), county parks and county children’s services.

Enquirer: It has to be Hillary Clinton

Our endorsement of Clinton is notable in that it is the first of a Democrat in roughly a century since The Enquirer began what we would consider endorsements in today’s context. Our archives show that the last Democrat The Enquirer editorial board liked was Woodrow Wilson, who won re-election in 1916.

How does a newspaper with such a staunch conservative and Republican tradition in the hometown of William Howard Taft come to endorse a Democrat? As the editorial notes, much of it has to do with the Republican candidate. But it also has to do with changes in the editorial board. It is made up of pragmatic, solution-driven members who, frankly, don’t have much use for extreme ideologies from the right or the left. We, like so many voters in the moderate middle, would like politicians to be more careful with our money while fiercely protecting individual rights regardless of race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation and other differences.

The board’s mantra in our editorials has been about problem-solving and improving the quality of life for everyone in greater Cincinnati. Rick Green, who left The Enquirer’s president position a short time ago, was part of the early conversations. The final decisions were made by Opinion Editor Cindi Andrews, Aldridge, Senior Local News Director Michael McCarter, Engagement Editor Katie Vogel and me.

Our decision is almost solely based on one factor: Who would be the better person to lead the country for the next four years? Our endorsement is not one of blind boosterism. Clinton’s candidacy has deep flaws, as the editorial notes. But to our board, she is clearly the better choice for the future of our nation. We feel this so strongly that we’re issuing this endorsement even before the first presidential debate has been held.

The beauty of this process is that ours is just one opinion. You are free to agree or disagree. And the ability to do so is a fundamental bedrock of our democracy as guaranteed in the First Amendment. But we thought you should know what we think is right, based on long conversations, deep reading and the responsibility we believe we have to this region.

Editorial decisions in other countries often represent partisan viewpoints that form the paper’s approach to the news. Happily, that tradition did not endure in this country. This endorsement will not change the way we cover the news. Our reporters are engaged in discovering the truth, wherever that may lead.

We live in a time where the political polarization and ready reinforcement of it on cable TV “news” stations and the web dominate. People only seek affirmation of their views, not verification of facts. If you don't agree with an individual's opinion, you are evil. The loss of civility and civil discourse is a deeply disturbing fact in this country.

It leads to letters such as this one received on Tuesday of last week: “It is appreciated that you are alerting the readers to expect more anti-Obama, anti-Clinton, and anti-Obamacare stories while also to expect more stories praising Trump as a seasoned statesman, the Republicans as the saviors of the economy, and the Noah's Ark exhibit as the new Lourdes of the Western Hemisphere.”

The writer concluded that he expected Sean Hannity to be the next editor of The Enquirer.

Then there’s the woman who called and yelled at me for the better part of 10 minutes about how we were being unfair to Trump, our coverage of him was all negative, and why aren’t we advocating for Clinton being in jail.

At least she didn't suggest Rachel Maddow would be the next editor of The Enquirer.

There will be more of this in the wake of our editorial. Thoughtful comment and disagreement is always appreciated; letters to the editor on why you like your candidate rather than merely despising the other one are particularly welcome and may be sent to letters@enquirer.com.

The vitriol just reinforces our point.