By Jon Dougherty
As the primary season ahead of the 2020 election heats up, Democrats are proving anew that theirs is the party of authoritarianism and top-down mandates, not small-“r” republicanism, liberty, and democracy.
Upset that his party is ‘allowing’ little-known candidates vying for the presidential nomination a place at the table for at least some Democratic debates, a former DNC official laments that there is too much deference and attention being given to “bullshit candidates” instead of the “leaders.”
What’s more, the former official didn’t even have the courage to identify himself, as the Washington Free Beacon reported:
A former Democratic National Committee official is worried that the party’s overly inclusive primary process is going to give too much valuable debate time to “the bullshit candidates” in the race.
Speaking with The Hill, the unnamed official didn’t single out anyone specifically from the field of 22 candidates. The official did mourn that because of the low threshold for making the first debate stage in June—getting donations from 65,000 unique people or reaching 1 percent in three different national polls—the more serious contenders will get crowded out by the “random people.”
“It was smart to add the grass-roots fundraising component, but when you throw in the 1 percent polling requirement, now all these random people get a spot on the stage,” the official said.
“I’m all for inclusion and competitive primaries, but no one can tell me it’s actually good for us to have this many candidates on stage,” the official said.
Then he blamed the wide GOP field during the 2016 primaries as the reason why POTUS Donald Trump got the nod.
“It wasn’t good for Republicans and they at least had an undercard debate. My fear is the bullshit candidates will take away from our legitimate ones. We saw how that worked for Republicans. They nominated Donald Trump,” the official said.
Right; Trump won because there were ‘too many Republicans’ running, not on the strength of his personality, his ideas, and his platform.
We don’t have any scientific data to back this up, but our gut feelings tell us that Americans are sick and tired of being spoon-fed political candidates and that most would actually favor a wider platform for various candidates, so they could more ideas from more people.
In fact, we wager that the more candidates in a race, the better it would serve voters.
Why? Because more candidates would serve as a driver of ideas as they compete with each other for attention and votes. As it stands now, for the most part, the establishment ‘picks’ candidates for us by standing behind certain ones (with money, backing, support) and ignoring everyone else.
Only an authoritarian mindset would seek to limit participation for elected office — especially for the presidency — in a free society.
- Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10