In response to “The News-Letter’s 2024 Presidential Endorsement” published October 10, 2024:
I write this letter not as a defense of Donald Trump but as a response to a stunningly vacuous endorsement of his opponent. If you were genuinely attempting to learn from it, I truly apologize—binging Rachel Maddow might have been more productive.
Typically, endorsements offer a positive vision, outline beneficial policies, or highlight the meaningful accomplishments of the candidate receiving them. But here, the endorsement reads less like a thoughtful, affirmative case for “Kamala Harris: Joy, Hugs and Vibes 2024!” and more like a dogmatic recitation of mainstream media talking points from the past eight years.
Much of the piece doesn’t even contrast Harris and Trump. Instead, it’s a gluttonous checklist of all the usual buzzwords: January 6th? Check. Authoritarian? Check. Racist? Check. Unfit for office? Evil orange man? Triple check. In other words, the “endorsement” reads less like an argument or rationale and more like a teleprompter from a Harris rally—minus the impromptu cackling and cringeworthy antimetaboles.
More charitably, though—I get it. This isn’t a problem unique to this piece. Endorsing chameleon Harris on meritorious ground is a challenging job and an even more challenging job to understand. It’s tough when you don’t have 101 interviews, two 3-hour Joe Rogan episodes, or a fusillade of unfiltered, unadulterated comments to work with. But shouldn’t voters know just as much about Harris’ candidacy? The coconut that just fell out of the coconut tree?
Nope. Instead, we’re to believe the candidate who survived two assassination attempts thanks to Hilterian comparisons is more of a threat to our democracy and institutions than the candidate who was quite literally installed by the DNC and rose to power faster than she changes accents. We’re to believe the president who presided under zero new wars—neither in Gaza nor in Ukraine—is somehow a greater threat to “global security and international stability” than someone whose foreign policy commentary conveys that a “bigger country” invading a “smaller country” is wrong. We’re to fear “defending the American tradition and Western civilization.” We’re to simply forget the last four years and focus on what can be, unburdened what has been—the last four years.
While we may not share many, if any, of our political persuasions, I have a feeling I speak for more than one sizable political faction on Harris’ radical inauthenticity. It’s on all of us to scrutinize, question, and demand answers before an unholy coronation.
Beware of falling coconuts.
Aneesh Swaminathan is a sophomore majoring in Political Science and Molecular and Cellular Biology.
