This morning the Washington Post, which has endorsed presidential candidates for three and a half decades, announced that the paper will not endorse a candidate for president in 2024 (or in the future). William Lewis, Washington Post publisher and CEO, in a lame defense of the decision, appealed to the "strong reasoning" from Post editorials in 1960 and 1972. Daniel Drezner, who wrote the Spoiler Alerts online column for the Post for eight years, pens a Substack today ("The Cowardice of the Washington Post") criticizing the editor's reasoning:
The most absurd part of Lewis’ explanation is, well all of it — because the Post’s own reporting make it clear that Lewis did not make this decision for high-minded reasons — it was Bezos’ call! And it seems pretty clear that Bezos is fearful that Trump, who exacted vengeance on Bezos-owned firms during his first term, will do the same if he is re-elected. Baron’s condemnation is a tell that there was nothing noble about Bezos’ decision.
Earlier this week, we learned that the Los Angeles Times, at the direction of its billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, had axed his paper's endorsement for president. Apart from Soon-Shiong's tweet (which purports to "clarify how this decision came about," but sheds no light on what prompted Soon-Shiong to overrule the editorial staff), the LA Times hasn't offered an authorized explanation. While Soon-Shiong hasn't bumped heads with our vengeful past president, an angry Donald Trump, if victorious, could undoubtedly find a way to do him harm.
In both instances, absent the intervention of the billionaire owners, we could anticipate endorsements of Kamala Harris for president. The editorial pages of both papers have been consistently pro-democratic, and thus anti-Trump ever since he rode down the golden escalator. But less than two weeks from the presidential election, two billionaires have decided to block endorsements by their editorial staffs.
In both instances, unless and until an explanation that no one has offered yet comes to light, these decisions to block Harris endorsements would appear to be what Timothy Snyder has called, "anticipatory obedience." Trump may win in 2024. If he does so, he can do both men (and their business interests) harm. And he has pledged to go after his enemies. The raw calculation is pretty hard to overlook.
The first lesson Snyder offers in On Tyranny is this:
Do not obey in advance.
Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
Anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy. Perhaps rulers did not initially know that citizens were willing to compromise this value or that principle. Perhaps a new regime did not at first have the direct means of influencing citizens one way or another. After the German elections of 1932, which brought Nazis into government, or the Czechoslovak elections of 1946, where communists were victorious, the next crucial step was anticipatory obedience. Because enough people in both cases voluntarily extended their services to the new leaders, Nazis and communists alike realized that they could move quickly toward a full regime change. The first heedless acts of conformity could not then be reversed.
"Follow the money," which guided two famous investigative journalists at the Washington Post in uncovering political corruption, suggests a reasonable explanation of editorial interference at two prominent newspapers. But whether Bezos and Soon-Shiong were fearful for their fortunes, or their liberty more broadly, or perhaps their families' well-being -- by their highly visible bows to Trump at this stage, they reinforce the evidence of the threat he poses.
If two of the world's richest men can't stand up to an authoritarian Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican Party, what does that mean for the rest of us? An awful lot rides on the November election for folks who value freedom.