Democracy Dies in Cowardice

By withholding endorsements in 2024, the Washington Post and LA Times chose silence when democracy needs clarity. It's complicated, but also simple.

In a critical decision that aims lofty but smells foul, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post opted out of endorsing a candidate for the US president in the election next Tuesday. We cannot prove what compelled billionaire owners to apparently overrule newsroom sentiment and editorial boards in favor of endorsing Kamala Harris – but it certainly creates the appearance of a craven abdication at what is democracy’s money time.

This isn’t just about staying neutral; as I wrote here last week, there are in fact decent arguments for both parties’ stands on the issues, and in a normal election in a functioning democracy that might justify neutrality. But in this particular case, two leading voices in American thought leadership have turned tail precisely a moment that demands principled clarity. That’s because Donald Trump’s campaign, record and personality all cross the line between when is acceptable and unacceptable. It’s as if Benito Mussolini was on the ballot – a tragic mutation.

There are, of course, credible arguments against endorsements, particularly in an age of widespread media distrust. Critics argue that newspaper endorsements can dilute credibility. Because many readers don’t know there is a wall between the newsroom and the opinion pages, they might suspect bias in the reporting.

Moreover, there’s no rule that endorsements must exist. The modern endorsement practice only took root in U.S. journalism a few decades ago, and studies in any case suggest that they sway very few voters (indeed, in 2016 almost every endorsement in the country went for the eventual loser Democrat Hilary Clinton, even in traditionally conservative outlets).

That’s why there has already been a trend away from endorsements in local elections. It makes sense, at a time when the declining number of remaining local papers need to appeal to the widest possible base of readers, both to survive and as a public service.

However, this reasoning crumbles in the face of Trump’s re-election bid.

Trump is not a standard conservative candidate. His identity is built on antagonism toward democratic principles, disregard for institutional norms, and an authoritarian personality that thrives on sowing division. He is cruel, petty, ignorant, immoral, incurious and corrupt to an unreasonable degree.