The Atlantic is a well-respected American publication. It also is one that tries with all its might to not be partisan when it comes to reporting on presidential politics. For this reason, the Atlantic usually refuses to endorse presidential candidates. The magazine has existed since 1857, and prides itself on being fact-based, morally sound, and non-partisan for the most part. They actually took sides for the first time in endorsing then-Republican candidate for president Abraham Lincoln, due to his position on slavery. To that endorsement, the paper said its reasoning for endorsing Lincoln was clear: a moral objection to slavery. The paper said of this endorsement:One of the animating causes of this magazine at its founding, in 1857, was the abolition of slavery, and Lowell argued that the Republican Party, and the man who was its standard-bearer in 1860, represented the only reasonable pathway out of the existential crisis then facing the country. In his endorsement of Abraham Lincoln for president, Lowell wrote, on behalf of the magazine,  It is in a moral aversion to slavery as a great wrong that the chief strength of the Republican party lies.  He went on to declare that Abraham Lincoln  had experience enough in public affairs to make him a statesman, and not enough to make him a politician. The’second time The Atlantic endorsed a candidate for president also had to do with racism, when the endorsement for Lyndon B. Johnson was announced. The Atlantic s position then was, once again, less of a glowing heap of praise for Johnson, but rather against Barry Goldwater s rank racism. Then-editor Edward Weeks wrote at the time: We admire the President for the continuity with which he has maintained our foreign policy, a policy which became a worldwide responsibility at the time of the Marshall Plan. The magazine went on to write that President Johnson would deliver to America the’solution  to the vexed problem of civil rights a power of conciliation which will prevent us from stumbling down the road taken by South Africa.  They went on to say of the known racist candidate they saw in Barry Goldwater:We think it unfortunate that Barry Goldwater takes criticism as a personal affront; we think it poisonous when his anger betrays him into denouncing what he calls the  radical  press by bracketing the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Izvestia. There speaks not the reason of the Southwest but the voice of Joseph McCarthy. We do not impugn Senator Goldwater s honesty. We sincerely distrust his factionalism and his capacity for judgment.And now, when faced with the possibility of a bigoted, dangerous demagogue as president, The Atlantic once again has taken a stand and endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Again, this has more to do with the dangers of a Trump administration than it has to do with Hillary herself. While the good folks at The Atlantic had plenty of praise for Hillary s public service record, their public endorsement is definitely focused on the indisputable dangers of Donald Trump. They said, in part:Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater s 1964 campaign of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate s own party have publicly renounced him. Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the’so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.The Atlantic s editors are right to do this. Trump is dangerous. The fact that a non-partisan, widely respected publication that has only taken sides in presidential politics three times since 1857 has such strong words against one major party candidate and in favor of another is very telling. They are telling us something that we should already know: a Donald Trump presidency isn’t just embarrassing, or even just bigoted. It would be a reckless and dangerous affair that would literally amount to a national and international emergency.Sure, Independents and others who aren’t necessarily on Team Hillary might have legitimate reasons for not taking the word of a clear Clinton supporter such as myself seriously. But you surely can, if only for a second, take a step back and consider the opinions of a paper like The Atlantic.Featured image via Alex Wong/Getty Images
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: The Atlantic is a well-respected American publication. It also is one that tries with all its might to not be partisan when it comes to reporting on presidential politics. For this reason, the Atlantic usually refuses to endorse presidential candidates. The magazine has existed since 1857, and prides itself on being fact-based, morally sound, and non-partisan for the most part. They actually took sides for the first time in endorsing then-Republican candidate for president Abraham Lincoln, due to his position on slavery. To that endorsement, the paper said its reasoning for endorsing Lincoln was clear: a moral objection to slavery. The paper said of this endorsement:One of the animating causes of this magazine at its founding, in 1857, was the abolition of slavery, and Lowell argued that the Republican Party, and the man who was its standard-bearer in 1860, represented the only reasonable pathway out of the existential crisis then facing the country. In his endorsement of Abraham Lincoln for president, Lowell wrote, on behalf of the magazine,  It is in a moral aversion to slavery as a great wrong that the chief strength of the Republican party lies.  He went on to declare that Abraham Lincoln  had experience enough in public affairs to make him a statesman, and not enough to make him a politician. The’second time The Atlantic endorsed a candidate for president also had to do with racism, when the endorsement for Lyndon B. Johnson was announced. The Atlantic s position then was, once again, less of a glowing heap of praise for Johnson, but rather against Barry Goldwater s rank racism. Then-editor Edward Weeks wrote at the time: We admire the President for the continuity with which he has maintained our foreign policy, a policy which became a worldwide responsibility at the time of the Marshall Plan. The magazine went on to write that President Johnson would deliver to America the’solution  to the vexed problem of civil rights a power of conciliation which will prevent us from stumbling down the road taken by South Africa.  They went on to say of the known racist candidate they saw in Barry Goldwater:We think it unfortunate that Barry Goldwater takes criticism as a personal affront; we think it poisonous when his anger betrays him into denouncing what he calls the  radical  press by bracketing the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Izvestia. There speaks not the reason of the Southwest but the voice of Joseph McCarthy. We do not impugn Senator Goldwater s honesty. We sincerely distrust his factionalism and his capacity for judgment.And now, when faced with the possibility of a bigoted, dangerous demagogue as president, The Atlantic once again has taken a stand and endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Again, this has more to do with the dangers of a Trump administration than it has to do with Hillary herself. While the good folks at The Atlantic had plenty of praise for Hillary s public service record, their public endorsement is definitely focused on the indisputable dangers of Donald Trump. They said, in part:Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater s 1964 campaign of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate s own party have publicly renounced him. Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the’so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.The Atlantic s editors are right to do this. Trump is dangerous. The fact that a non-partisan, widely respected publication that has only taken sides in presidential politics three times since 1857 has such strong words against one major party candidate and in favor of another is very telling. They are telling us something that we should already know: a Donald Trump presidency isn’t just embarrassing, or even just bigoted. It would be a reckless and dangerous affair that would literally amount to a national and international emergency.Sure, Independents and others who aren’t necessarily on Team Hillary might have legitimate reasons for not taking the word of a clear Clinton supporter such as myself seriously. But you surely can, if only for a second, take a step back and consider the opinions of a paper like The Atlantic.Featured image via Alex Wong/Getty Images