Vice President Kamala Harris's party nomination stirring controversy as it faces scrutiny for its ostensibly undemocratic processes despite public portrayals.
Breitbart reported that the Democratic Party faced significant pushback amidst Vice President Kamala Harris’s official acceptance of her party’s nomination this past Thursday.
While the party heralded the process as exemplary of its democratic ethos, key insiders suggested otherwise.
Critiques emanated from across the political spectrum, coalescing around the idea that the democratic process was circumvented.
A stark revelation came from California Governor Gavin Newsom during his appearance on the "Pod Save America" podcast.
Newsom candidly admitted that he was instructed to describe the nomination process for Vice President Harris as "open" and "inclusive." His words on the podcast betrayed a somewhat cynical undertone as he echoed the lines fed to him, attempts to portray a grassroots-level decision-making approach which he did not seem fully convinced by.
“I’ve been told to say it was a very open process, a very inclusive process. It was bottom-up, I don’t know if you know that. That’s what I’ve been told to say,” Newsom narrated, his laughter punctuating the scripted nature of his statements.
This unexpected transparency jolted public and journalistic communities, ultimately fueling debates about the genuine nature of transparency and democracy within the party’s ranks.
Commentators and journalists wasted no time in expressing their skepticism and disappointment over the handling of the Democratic nomination.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald starkly criticized the process, commenting, “The Party of Democracy sits around guffawing at how anti-democratic and vote-free and secret was their process for choosing and then imposing the new Democratic presidential nominee on the country.”
His statement reflects a broader sentiment of disenfranchisement among voters and political observers alike.
The critique didn’t end with journalists. Other public figures and critics chimed in, highlighting the irony of a party that voices staunch support for democratic principles engaging in practices perceived as its antithesis.
“Gavin Newsom knows the Harris nomination was a top-down coup, and they’re all cynical about it. Is this the ‘democracy’ they want to save? What a sick joke on their supporters and this country,” remarked another critic, shedding light on the perceived mismatch between the party’s public declarations and internal operations.
Amidst this polemic, the revelation that approximately 14 million votes cast in the primaries for President Joe Biden were effectively disregarded by the decision-makers added fuel to the fire.
Such actions stood at odds with the image of voter-driven decision-making the party sought to project. This action raised critical questions about the valuation of party members' voices in the electoral process.
Dumisani Washington from the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel also pointed out apparent contradictions in the party’s stance on diversity and equality.
“The party always screaming about DEI and White privilege love using DEI to flaunt their White privilege,” he observed, linking the narratives of inclusivity to broader themes of political and racial hypocrisy.
“Isn’t screwing over the voters funny?” his rhetorical question bearing a deep critique of the party’s handling of its nomination process.