Straussians* of the Center Left

God, the lust for an “open convention”among the punditariat is embarrassing.

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) July 21, 2024

Democratic voters chose Harris.

While technically there may only be one name on the ballot, when primary voters pull the lever for the incumbent, they know they are voting for a ticket not an individual. They are choosing a candidate and that candidate's successor.

Much to the consternation of the pundits and in direct contradiction of their narrative, Biden and Harris sailed through the primaries with margins similar to that of Obama in 2012. The voter's preference was clear.

The Democratic Party told its voters that they could not be trusted to select a nominee when they effectively shut down their primary process. Now, they are installing a new nominee. American voters happen to like democracy. I predict some backlash.

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) July 21, 2024

This never happened. If it had, you would have never heard of Dean Phillips (instead of just hearing about him and forgetting). It's true that no one wanted to be McCarthy '68, McGovern '72, or Kennedy '80, but that was an individual choice (and probably a good one).

There is an Orwellian freedom-is-slavery quality to arguing that following the will of the party's voters somehow suppresses it while going with a plan conceived and all but solely supported by the journalistic elites of the NYT et al., a plan that allows for no direct participation of the party's actual voters is the democratic option.

Is the Trump campaign writing the Washington Post editorials now? beyond ridiculous. https://t.co/Aw3okZBns3

Opinion | As Joe Biden drops out, Democrats get a golden opportunity to reset - The Washington Post https://t.co/52daa2Nvd1

— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) July 21, 2024

You might, and I want to heavily emphasize the word "might," be able to make some kind of a case for an open convention if we had evidence of a huge groundswell of popular support for the idea, but we appear to be seeing the exact opposite. Based on polling, responses from across the party, and the stunning wave of small donor contributions, it seems that members of the party are (at least by Democratic standards) remarkably unified behind and excited about the successor that they overwhelmingly voted for explicitly in 2020 and implicitly in 2024. 

What we're seeing is the latest reminder of the long-standing indifference and often open hostility of the elite press, particularly the New York Times, toward the idea of democracy. You can find examples of this going back at least a century or so with the way papers like the NYT covered the rise of fascism in Europe, but the more telling cases are more recent and closer to home. There was virtually no pushback from the mainstream press in 2000 when the Supreme Court installed the candidate lost the popular vote and probably the electoral college vote as well. We've also seen it in the blasé attitude toward voter suppression.  Since then things have only gotten worse. The disdain for Democratic primary voters has been palpable, culminating with the current enthusiasm for an option that will basically cut actual voters out of the process entirely.

None of this is surprising. While it is possible to find people of humble beginnings holding prominent positions in the New York Times, New York magazine, and company, they are rare and they become more rare the higher up you go. You don't have to look very deep to find signs of class bigotry and a profound distrust of rule by the people. This is always been true. Recently, it's just been closer to the surface. 

* I'm using Straussian in the sense of someone who believes in rule by the elite.. That's an overly broad and somewhat sloppy definition, but what you expect from a blog?