How The New York Times’ Dual Endorsement Fucked Us In The Ass

photo courtesy of @politico Instagram

photo courtesy of @politico Instagram

Within the Democratic Party, there is a debate underway, an essential one between two drastically different visions for the future of the party. There are the centrists and the moderates, including the Klobuchars and the Bidens and Buttigiegs, who want to improve governmental institutions and the societal norms of the nation that are already in place. Then there are the progressives, including the Warrens and the Sanders, who are staunch believers that the only way to achieve meaningful change is to totally reconstruct the institutions and norms we’ve grown accustomed to.  

This year The New York Times editorial board made a bold move. They recognized this internal divisiveness and did something that has never been done — they endorsed two separate Democratic candidates for president. One candidate for the progressive wing of the party and another for the moderate. 

For their progressive candidate, The Times plugged Elizabeth “I have a plan for that” Warren. 

Unlike Bernie Sanders with whom Warren shares a similar stance on a litany of issues and who, for the past four decades has been advocating the once-radical ideas of paid family leave, higher minimum wage, limitations on military intervention and most famously, universal healthcare from a place so far left that it is almost adjacent the Democratic party, Elizabeth Warren has not. Warren is a Democratic convert. In fact, for a long time, Warren was a Republican who turned to the Democratic party after years of living as a member of the middle class in Oklahoma and studying the economy. 

For the moderate wing of the party, The Times endorsed Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar. 

It was Joe Biden who was supposed to be the moderate to unite the party and even bring in some of the left-leaning Republican voters. It was Joe Biden who was supposed to be light at the end of the poorly spray-tanned tunnel. But as the pundits took a step back and the people stepped up, what emerged could not be more contrary. What emerged was Amy Klobuchar. 

Her Midwestern values, lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials resemble all of the attractive traits that voters believe the candidate who will reclaim the White House likely needs. Just like all candidates in the Democratic primary, she intends to toughen environmental regulations for the sake of mother nature and make a comprehensive public healthcare system a reality, but she is also a Christian who is the daughter of two union workers. Her Uncle Dick owned a deer stand, and does it get any more American than that?

It is evident that these are two highly capable women, either of whom would be able to take on the immense challenges of the presidency, but these are two women who would appeal to entirely different voters. And that is the issue.

Both of these women are vying for the same eventual nomination but it feels as if they represent two entirely different political parties. The fact that The New York Times felt that no single candidate was capable of representing the Democratic party in its entirety is cause for serious concern. It is an indisputable fact that in order to defeat Donald Trump, Democrats need to find a way to unite. They need to put their collective support behind a single candidate. But that may not be the case.

Moderates and progressives certainly agree on one thing, it is time for Extreme Makeover: White House Edition. However, if the two groups remain divided on the best way to achieve change, it is inevitable that the state of things will remain the same. Or, perhaps, they will worsen. 

We do not claim to know how to rectify this problem, nor do we think that The Times was misguided in issuing their groundbreaking dual endorsement. But, we do think the world needs to wake up. Individuals need to take a step back and recognize that it is more important to find a way to come together on the issues that unite us rather than fixate on the small differences between the candidates that divide us.