“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”

                                                                                                               Attributed to Dante Alighieri

“…history will record Mr. Trump’s presidency as a march of wanton, uninterrupted, tragic destruction. America’s standing in the world, loyalty to allies, commitment to democratic values, constitutional checks and balances, faith in reason and science, concern for Earth’s health, respect for public service, belief in civility and honest debate, beacon to refugees in need, aspirations to equality and diversity and basic decency — Mr. Trump torched them all.

“Four years ago, after Mr. Trump was nominated in Cleveland, we did something in this space we had never done before: Even before the Democrats had nominated their candidate, we told you that we could never, under any circumstances, endorse Donald Trump for president. He was, we said, “uniquely unqualified” to be president.”

That’s from The Washington Post editorial page back in 2020. That year The Post had no problem endorsing Joe Biden for President, just as it had no problem in 2016 endorsing Hillary Clinton.

This year, when it came to endorsing a presidential candidate, however, the publisher of The Post, William Lewis, wrote: “Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.” Lewis reached back to a decision by The Post in 1960 not to endorse either presidential candidate, declaring that it would refrain from endorsing in the future. However, in 1976 The Post endorsed Jimmy Carter and did so in every election but 1988. “But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to,” Lewis said

This sudden turnabout or retreat is suspicious, given The Post’s past comments about Donald Trump, especially since earlier this month The Post had no problem endorsing Angela Alsobrooks for the Senate over Larry Hogan Jr.

The decision not to endorse reportedly was made by Jeff Bezos, The Post’s owner, and not by Lewis. The Los Angeles Times also decided not to endorse. Without citing all the ways that that paper is not The Washington Post, it’s enough to say that The Post has throughout modern history stood as a courageous guardian of democracy and the rule of law. Now, in a moment of clear peril, the paper has opted to remain silent.

Why? Why the sudden decision to let readers make up their own minds—as if readers wouldn’t do that in any case. Editorial endorsements aren’t commands or dictates to readers. They’re suggestions. They are “If you’re wondering what we think, here it is” comments, to be taken into account or disregarded.

Given the inconsistency in The Post’s performance in endorsing on the one hand but not on the other, we have to see the explanation here as lame at best and dishonest at worst.

The Post has a long and hallowed tradition of keeping news and opinion separate. The Post’s reporting on Trump as a candidate and as president has been alert, aggressive and intrepid. The editorial page has, for the most part, been much the same in its comments. Now, we have to wonder if, should it come to pass that Trump wins a second term, either the news coverage or the editorials will continue in the same tradition.