Fact Check: WSJ Endorses Trump

While the WSJ reminds it hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928, it might as well have after two op eds last week utterly trashed Harris & only half-trashed Trump, noting his record as POTUS was “better than expected.”

First, the trashing of Kamala, who is “a California progressive, elevated at the last minute, who looks unprepared for a world on fire.” In fact, the editorial board opines, “The best argument for a Trump victory is that it would be suitable penance for the many Democratic failures at home & abroad … A spending-fueled inflation that shrank real wages … Adversaries on the march … Abuses of regulatory power & law enforcement.” And, if Harris wins? “Progressives will claim vindication & pursue more of the same.”

Meanwhile, the editors concede that while Trump’s “leadership was often chaotic & caustic … voters recall that at home he presided over a strong pre-Covid economy spurred by deregulation & tax reform … His judicial nominations were excellent … [And although] he broke many diplomatic rules & his praise for dictators was disconcerting … enemies stayed quiet on his watch, he kept Iran in a box, & the Abraham Accords began a new era of cooperation between Israel & the Sunni states … He renegotiated Nafta rather than blowing it up as he had threatened … [And] The authoritarian rule that Democrats & the press predicted never appeared.” In short, the board said, “We don’t buy the fascism fears & we doubt Democrats really do either [while] The polls say Americans want change & are unhappy with the results of progressive governance.” To conclude, yeah, “A second Trump term poses risks, but the question as ever is compared to what?”

Davd Soul