The Bitter Endorsement

The New York Times editorial board has announced they will stop making endorsements in local political races, ending a time-honored tradition of aiding its readers in complex electoral moments. The Paper of Record released that it “does not plan to take a stance in Senate, congressional or state legislative races in New York this fall, or in next year’s New York City elections.” The change will be immediate.

While they will continue to report on state races and argue that the Opinion pages will provide nuanced information, the Grey Lady will no longer make suggestions on candidates beyond the Presidency and Vice Presidency. Since 1960, the top-of-the-ticket endorsements have all gone to the Democratic candidate, rendering such instruction relatively moot.

Such a shift may come as a way to distance federal democrats from their colleagues in New York State, who have managed to make quite a mess in recent years. From New York City Mayor Adam’s migrant overflow crisis to Governor Cuomo’s myriad muck-ups, it would be difficult to make a case for the DNC as a party of steady leadership in the same fold as the local loonies. The New York Times is clearly putting all of its energies behind a Harris-Walz campaign without muddying the waters by associating them with less mainstream municipal and state legislators.

The move also symbolically minimizes the importance of local and state governments, which are arguably more central to quality of life and safety than those on a federal level. Americans should be encouraged to take interest in their municipal, county, and state organization even more so than far-removed Beltway bureaucracies. An average person can reasonably hope to make a significant difference if they involve themselves close to home, while most can only send a vote to Washington. Ordinary citizens can usually run for office without substantial barriers and more readily communicate with elected officials within their own communities.

While most government spending in the United States begins at the federal level, nearly two-thirds of that is directed to state and local governments for final investment decisions. Zoning, education policy, transportation, and significant portions of tax law are all predominantly handled below the federal level.

In the absence of trusted endorsements, New Yorkers will now be increasingly beholden to special interest groups using money and political pressure to further candidates and niche policy. This also grants party officials broader authority in primary selections, as the Grey Lady often broke with leadership to recommend alternatives. Given the recent behind-the-scenes shuffling for the Presidential and Vice-Presidential ticket, any effort to remove further involvement from the electorate is coming dangerously close to disenfranchisement, whether it stems from a major party or a complicit media.

The decision has been met with backlash from journalists, politicians, and local progressives alike. Many have condemned the move as an abdication of responsibility, with others questioning why the paper will continue to offer its opinion on Presidential races.

How do you feel about the end of endorsements by the New York Times? Will it have an impact on future election results?

Hilary Gunn is a Connecticut native with a degree in Criminal Justice from the George Washington University. She works for a nonprofit and has previously collaborated with the CT GOP as an activist, political campaign manager and field director, and social media organizer. She is currently serving in her fourth term of municipal office and has previously acted as a delegate on the Republican Town Committee.