WASHINGTON: I grew up in Northeast Ohio, and I am voting for Hillary Clinton for president.
I was born in Akron and raised in Cuyahoga Falls by a blue-collar automaker and a full-time homemaker and part-time salad girl at the restaurant in the old O’Neil’s department store at Chapel Hill Mall. My parents taught me hard work and the pursuit of excellence.
I went to the University of Akron, as I did not have the money to go away to school. I worked hard there and received a first-rate education. Multiple teachers at Cuyahoga Falls High School and UA inspired me to learn, to wonder and to want to make the world a better place.
After college, I found my way to the CIA, where I started in 1980 as a junior analyst. Largely through the values instilled by my parents, I rose to be the deputy director and twice acting director of the most capable intelligence agency on the planet. After 33 years of service, I retired in 2013.
My plan going into this election was to do what I had always done with regard to politics — keep my political views private. Doing so would have been consistent with the nonpartisan, apolitical nature of being a professional intelligence officer. It was also safe; I did not need to worry about anyone attacking me if I stayed silent. And keeping quiet meant that I could continue to work for CBS as a commentator on national security. Take a public stand, and I would have to resign, as required in my contract.
But, as the campaign evolved, I found myself talking more and more with my family about my concern that Donald Trump would fail us as president and about my view that Secretary Clinton’s considerable capabilities to do the job were not shining through the tarnish that had been applied over the years by her political adversaries.
Eventually, my children asked: “Dad, don’t you have a responsibility to share your views with the American public? Don’t you have a responsibility to speak out.”
They were right. And, in August, I penned an op-ed column in the New York Times endorsing Clinton. My focus in that piece was on national security — my view that Trump would be a danger to our national security if elected and that Clinton would make an outstanding president. My argument rested on the two candidates’ experience and temperament, as well as my experience working with Clinton during the four years she served as secretary of state.
I fear Trump’s need to have his ego stroked would make it easy for foreign leaders to manipulate him — as Russian President Putin has already done. I fear that Trump’s overreaction to perceived slights and his shoot-from-the-hip decision-making style would be dangerous during a foreign policy crisis.
And I fear he is serious when he takes positions that are odds with U.S. interests — such as his support for Putin’s aggressive behavior, his support for the spread of nuclear weapons and his view that our allies should be held to a “who is paying the bill” rather than a “what is in the best interest of our security” standard.
In sharp contrast, I know — from spending hundred of hours with her in national security meetings — that Secretary Clinton is determined to protect our country. I know she was the most prepared person in the room for national security meetings. I know she listened carefully, asked the right questions and was willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I know she showed outstanding judgment in what she recommended to the president. I know she and Defense Secretary Gates almost always agreed. I know she never brought politics into the room — that she always put the best interests of national security ahead of everything else. I know her as a person of integrity.
Everything I have seen since August has only reinforced this view on who would best keep our country safe. After watching the first debate, I wondered, “If Donald Trump was that unprepared for the most important event of his political life, would he also be unprepared for meetings in the most important room that a commander in chief sits — the Situation Room?” After seeing his erratic behavior and deep anger in the second and third debates, I was convinced that his finger must not be anywhere near the nuclear codes.
And the revelation about Trump’s vulgar bragging about sexually assaulting women is sickening. It is a demonstration of his ignorance, his deep lack of respect for women and his lack of character. It puts into sharp relief just how unfit he is to be our president. We cannot let that happen.
Everyone who does not want to see Trump in the White House needs to come out and vote for Hillary Clinton. For those thinking of voting for a third party candidate, realize that doing so does not maximize the probability of keeping Trump out of the Oval Office. Only voting for Clinton does that. For those considering voting for Trump, think about how you would feel if he sexually assaulted your wife, daughter or sister — or even if just talked about it.
I know that many in Northeast Ohio are rightly focused on the economy. It is true that the recovery from the 2008 recession has been slow, that manufacturing jobs have been lost due to globalization and advances in technology and that wealth in America has become less equal. I’m no mere bystander on these issues. I watched my father repeatedly laid off over the years, and I saw firsthand the financial and emotional strains on our family.
But my years watching the world taught me that a policy response to economic distress that artificially restrains trade — which Trump has repeatedly said he would do — would lead to a deeper economic decline, not to sustainable growth. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 is widely seen as one of the factors that pushed the U.S. economy into an even deeper depression — because, if we restrain trade to protect specific jobs at home, we will lose even more jobs elsewhere in the economy as consumers pay higher prices for the goods produced by the protected industries and as other countries respond to our protectionism with their own. It is a policy that has failed many countries over the years.
In response to our real economic problems, the most effective policy response is the one outlined by Secretary Clinton — the embrace of the creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship occurring in our economy that creates high-paying jobs, an education system that prepares all of our kids to participate fully in the modern economy and assistance, including job training, for those who have been left behind.
I moved to our nation’s capital 35 years ago, but I remain invested in Ohio. I am on the board of a Fortune 500 company in the region. I am involved with the University of Akron. My heart is still in Ohio. I had tears in my eyes when the clock ticked down to zero on the Cavaliers’ first championship, and I am following every pitch in the Indians pursuit of a World Series ring. I still consider Ohio home, and there is no doubt in my mind that Secretary Clinton is the best choice for Ohio and for the country.
Morell was the deputy director and twice acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013. He worked for six different presidents, including on a daily basis with President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama.