In 1968, in the midst Democratic convention riots, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley famously declared, “The policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”
Democratic state election officials appear to have adopted a similar approach to the upcoming election. In states such as North Carolina and Michigan, Democrats are fighting to keep the name of Robert Kennedy, Jr. on the ballot even though he withdrew from the race and endorsed former president Donald Trump. These are key states where the misplacement of even 1 percent of votes could turn the outcome of not just the state but the entire election.
In Michigan, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson recently fought to keep third-party candidate Cornel West off the ballot. Unlike Kennedy, who is viewed as likely to drain votes from Trump, West is viewed as pulling votes from Vice President Kamala Harris, particularly among those opposed to her policies toward Israel.
A court ruled against Benson and said that she was adopting an artificially narrow interpretation to keep Kennedy on the ballot.
In North Carolina, where Trump and Harris are in a statistical tie, Democrats also refused to remove Kennedy’s name. An appellate court this week ordered them to do so to avoid the obvious confusion for voters.
Recently, the same Democratic officials sought to block West from the ballot due to his campaign causing “partisan mischief.”
These efforts are being pursued in other states such as Wisconsin (another key state), where Democrats on the election board blocked a Republican effort to remove Kennedy’s name.
In Michigan and North Carolina, officials have the distinction of fighting to keep a popular candidate from the ballot while fighting to retain a non-existent candidate.
It is all in the name of protecting democracy from itself.
Previously, Democrats in Florida and North Carolina fought to block other Democrats from appearing on primary ballots. Candidates like Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), author Marianne Williamson and commentator Cenk Uygur faced concerted campaigns by election officials and advocates to prevent voters from having a choice in the primary.
After preventing a meaningful primary and securing the nomination for President Biden, Democrats later handed the nomination to Harris without a single vote from a single primary voter.
Democratic activists are now calling it an election by “acclamation,” like a political version of the immaculate conception in which a candidate is simply conceived by the party elite. It is enough to make the Chinese Central Committee blush.
Harris was then walled off from the media to avoid any unscripted interactions, including by putting earbuds in her ears in what many called a clearly fake call to avoid press questions.
At the same time, Democratic supporters are now arguing that it is not necessary for Harris to offer detailed plans or agree to interviews in a campaign that is selling “joy” and “good vibes” like political valium.
Others appear to believe that saving democracy means holding Harris to a different, more deferential standard. New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to defend treating Harris differently: “I think the challenge, not just for journalists, but really for the country, is that not only is Donald Trump a threat, but, you know, it lowers the bar. So, I don’t think it’s unacceptable,” she said.
Somewhere in that double negative, journalism perished. In my new book, I discuss how journalists are now sometimes taught to dispense with both neutrality and objectivity in favor of framing the news for viewers and readers.
You see, it is all about saving democracy. Gay explained: “The context is difficult because of the extremism of the Republican Party, because of how extreme Donald Trump is, it’s hard to hold both candidates accountable equally, because one is committed to democracy and is functioning as a normal candidate from a normal American party, and the other is not.”
This was echoed by “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough, who said that life as we know it would end unless Harris is elected, telling viewers that the “autocrat” Trump would throw opponents in jail and take media outlets off the air: “So, yeah, the threats to democracy are real,” he said. “But [so are] the threats to the free market, the threats to free enterprise, to our economy.”
Other guests amplified that dire message further and criticized people for covering how Harris is changing her positions and refusing to offer details on policies. It appears that this election is simply too important for substantive debate. After all, Harris has said that 2024 “genuinely could be” the last democratic election in America’s history. The last thing we need is a substantive election at this precarious time.
The omitted details include Harris’s support for policies that many of us view as a direct threat to our constitutional system, including censorship and court packing.
Both candidates have much to address that they would prefer to ignore. The media is correct to press Trump on many of these issues. Yet, the success of any democratic system is dependent on three key elements: participation, information and choice. Getting the vote out takes on a menacing meaning if voters are being protected from the distractions of facts. Winning at any cost is no virtue in a democracy, even when claiming to be a defender of democracy.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”