Op-Ed: Democracy Wins if Democrats Lose the Election
The article discusses concerns regarding Kamala Harris’s ascendancy as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, suggesting that her nomination was undemocratic and lacking the legitimacy of a traditional primary process. The author compares Harris’s situation to Donald Trump’s, who is presented as having secured the Republican nomination through a fair and competitive primary. It argues that Harris’s appointment lacked transparency and that she did not earn her position through a rigorous electoral process, instead being “force-fed” to the Democratic electorate shortly before the party convention.
The piece also reflects on Harris’s limited role in the Biden administration and how she has not actively addressed or taken advantage of Biden’s declining political standing. The author suggests that significant Democratic figures had a more substantial role in the decision to replace Biden than Harris did, indicating that even in a coup situation, a more democratic approach was taken than in her selection.
The article concludes by framing Harris’s campaign as irrational, characterized by fearmongering, and aligned against Trump, whom it portrays as a candidate representing a restoration of democratic norms. It posits that Harris’s nomination is an example of undemocratic practices within the Democratic Party, contrasting it with Trump’s candidacy as a result of democratic processes. The author indicates that Harris’s failure could ultimately lead to a reinstatement of genuine democracy in response to a chaotic campaign. The piece is clearly an opinion piece, emphasizing the author’s critical view of Harris’s legitimacy and political efficacy.
What happens when the presidential candidate for one of our major political parties isn’t chosen by that party via the primary process? What results when that candidate is spared the bruises and jostling associated with the primary process? How is a sitting elected leader of that party replaced after a palace coup?
The answer to those questions is, Kamala Harris. Each question’s answer undercuts any hint of democracy and/or real “choice.” Harris is the quintessential undemocratic Democrat.
In this “bizarro” world an abridged primary process by Democrats resulted in the unthinkable candidate, Harris, being force-fed to them mere weeks before their party convention.
Trump, no matter what you may think of him, is appearing on election ballots on the first Tuesday in November as the result of a fair primary process in which he vanquished no fewer than seven opponents.
He obtained the Republican nomination by campaigning for and winning the votes of Republicans across the nation.
Harris for her part lurked in the shadows of the Biden administration, doing nothing, saying nothing, and amounting to nothing for nearly four years.
While she may not have been on Biden diaper patrol, she was certainly aware that Grandpa Joe was experiencing an undeniable mental decline. Biden’s mental deterioration became the worst-kept secret in D.C. The administration, Democrats, and the legacy media kept it until polls indicated Trump would beat him because of that decline.
Harris wasn’t even consequential enough to be part of the palace coup. She didn’t cut Biden’s brake lines or put poison in his pablum. Instead, she stood by and did nothing — even when doing so would promote her candidacy.
More powerful voices in the Democratic Party, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and even George Clooney, pushed Biden’s wheelchair down the White House stairs, not the vice president.
An actor who pretends to be someone else for a living was more important than the vice president of the United States in ousting a sitting president. The decision to remove Biden, no matter how conspiratorial or sinister, was on its face more democratic than Harris’ coronation.
In that dark star chamber, a straight vote was conducted when it came time to take Biden out. Thumbs up he stays, thumbs down he goes.
Think about that. The suspects in the greatest political coup of modern times acted in a more democratic manner when deciding to undo Biden, than their party did in appointing Harris to replace him.
The consequence of her appointment is Harris’ belief that she does not have to explain herself, her policies, or even how a Harris administration would differ from Biden’s.
Why would she be answerable for anything when she obtained the nomination by coronation? In her mind, she is above the necessity of specifics or outlining a comprehensible agenda specifically because she was anointed instead of elected.
As polls show her coming defeat, her campaign has devolved, along with her party and its endless procession of progressive minions, into an irrational screed of fearmongering and name-calling.
Is there a better time of year than Halloween to try and scare the populace with accusations of fascism, Hitlerian finger-pointing, and the vague threat of “the end of democracy”?
Are there any scarier visages than Hillary Clinton’s or James Carville’s undead rising to warn of Trump’s “threat to democracy” or their impending imprisonment at Trump’s orange hands?
Harris’ undemocratic campaign ends with a Trump victory and the restoration of democracy. Trump, for the first time in his political career, is the conventional candidate in terms of the democratic process.
Harris stands uniquely outside the norm in the form of her undemocratic appointment. The undemocratic Democrat gets dumped, and the winner is democracy itself.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either d or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
