Thesis on the dilemma between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, ahead upcoming election, the New York Times officially endorsed the vice president of the United States.

Specifically, a piece signed by the NYT editorial board titled “The Only Patriotic Choice for President”, it states that Donald Trump is deemed unfit for a second term. The editors of the American newspaper cite the problems of a possible new term for Trump, focusing on his character and governance, and by extension backs Harris, “despite the lack of detail in some of her plans.”

The same text stresses that Kamala Harris is a dedicated public servant with specific plans for the economy, health care, and foreign policy. While acknowledging that her communications strategy and limited media exposure have drawn criticism, the paper believes Harris is the best choice for the stability and democratic health of the United States.

The article highlights that the dangers of a second Trump term, such as his refusal to accept election results and his intention to use power to attack his political opponents, are outweighed by any doubts about Harris. His reports of his role as a “dictator” and his inability to control his dangerous political ambitions are good reasons for him to be rejected by the electorate. The New York Times also points out that Trump has succeeded in turning the Republican Party into a tool of his political agenda, moving it away from the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

On the policy front, Harris has pledged to support families and small businesses, maintain alliances with democratic countries, and move on needed health care and immigration reforms. In contrast, Trump’s policies focus on tax breaks for the wealthy, restricting women’s rights, and isolating the U.S. from the international community.

As the New York Times notes, “Many voters said they wanted more details about the vice president’s plans, as well as more unscripted meetings in which she would explain her vision and policies. They are right to ask for it. Given the stakes of this election, Ms. Harris may believe she is running a campaign designed to minimize the risks of an unforced error – answering reporters’ questions and offering more policy details could spark controversy, after all – with the belief that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump may be enough to propel her to victory.”

As they say, “This strategy may ultimately prove victorious, but it does a disservice to the American people and her record. By leaving the public feeling protected from tough questions, like Mr. Biden, it could backfire by undermining her basic argument that a capable new generation is ready to take the reins of power.”

The NYT notes “Ms. Harris is not wrong, however, about the clear risks of Mr. Trump’s return to office. He has promised to be a different kind of president this time around, a president who is not constrained by the checks on power built into the American political system. His promise to be a “dictator” on “Day 1” may indeed have been a joke – but his blatant sympathy for dictatorships and the powerful men who run them is anything but.”

The editorial board concludes that Harris’s candidacy, while controversial for a portion of voters, is the only one that can prevent the undermining of institutions and the continuing erosion of democratic values, ensuring a better path for America and its international standing.

The New York Times’ selection of Harris is not surprising, as the paper has not endorsed a Republican candidate since 1956. However, the committee stressed that this election is particularly critical to the future course of American democracy, and that’s why Harris is “the only choice.”