In a bold political maneuver that’s raising eyebrows, a dominant party seems determined to steer their primary elections to favor an incumbent, but at what cost to the democratic principles they claim to uphold?

Despite the guise of democracy, Joe Biden appears to have an ‘assured’ path to the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination, thanks to tailored maneuvers by his party to shelter him from potential embarrassment during a primary. As his party deftly shields Biden from inter-party challenges, concerns rise about the diminishing transparency in the democratic process.

James Clyburn, a representative from South Carolina, conceded in a recent interview that the Democratic National Committee strategically altered the primary calendar to secure Biden’s chances. Rather than a fair political contest, the move appears more like an attempt to ‘save face’ for the incumbent president. Clyburn casually explained this as a strategy to evade ’embarrassment,’ which makes one wonder what they fear revealing.

Back in February, the DNC opted to shuffle its primary calendar, upsetting longstanding traditions. This saw the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire presidential primary stripped of their coveted positions as the first tests of candidates’ popularity. The power to kickstart the nomination process was handed over to Nevada and New Hampshire. The strategy seems glaringly transparent, given Biden’s previous uninspiring performances in Iowa and New Hampshire during the 2020 primaries.

While these states cling to their rights to hold the first presidential nomination contests, the DNC’s iron-fisted stance might result in their delegates being shunned at the Democratic National Convention. These strong-arm tactics seem far removed from the core principles of a democratic society.

In a further bid to secure Biden’s position, the DNC shockingly decided against scheduling any primary debates, which has ignited strong criticism from Biden’s party challengers, Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They echo sentiments shared by many Americans who believe that different ideas and perspectives should be voiced openly. As Williamson aptly said, ‘Too many people are too smart to accept this.’

Nina Turner, a former state senator from Ohio and a veteran of Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign, called the decision ‘undemocratic,’ and accused it of robbing voters of choice. She boldly challenged the DNC, tweeting, ‘No one who feels confident in their record and/or ideas would hesitate to stand on them. The DNC should hold debates. This is supposed to be a democratic process.’

For democracy’s sake, Turner believes in debates, a principle she argues should be upheld by all political parties. It’s a view that resonates with many who are growing increasingly skeptical of the DNC’s methods.

The Republican National Committee was also criticized for avoiding debates during the 2020 election cycle, but no challenger was perceived as a serious threat to then-President Trump. The DNC’s stance seems eerily similar, but perhaps more concerning given numerous surveys indicating that a significant number of Democratic voters are unsupportive of Biden’s re-run.

RFK Jr. decried the DNC’s decisions as ‘unfortunate,’ underscoring the party’s denial of the democratic principle of open debates. He also expressed disappointment over the revised presidential nomination calendar, which he believes aims to protect Biden’s interests.

While Williamson may be a long-shot, RFK Jr. has shown promising results in some polls, achieving up to 19 percent support. This suggests he could be a serious challenger to Biden, provided the DNC levels the political battlefield.

Interestingly, Biden seems to be losing popularity, particularly among women and Generation X voters, according to a Fox News survey. This might explain why his party is keen on playing ‘defense’ and curating the primary process in his favor. But at what cost to democracy and fair play?

Sources: ConservativeBrief, Politico, Fox News

About The Author

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.