Kamala Harris: An Emblem of Democratic Discontent
William Henry Harrison held the last presidency under the designation of being a British-born leader and also triumphed as the premier Whig Party representative in the White House. His long-winded inaugural address lasted a record-breaking two hours, yet his presidency was markedly brief, as he was the first incumbent to pass away in office, just a little over a month into his term.
Interestingly, Harrison distinguished himself as the final prominent figure who, after facing defeat in his initial presidential race, came out victorious in the successive election. He thus joined the ranks of the Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Richard Nixon found success far down the timeline after his initial setback, while the likes of Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump experienced winning, losing, and then winning once more.
Historically, those politicians who have lost in their first presidential bid and sought another chance in the immediately subsequent election have often also tasted defeat again. Adlai Stevenson, a notable Democrat, and Thomas Dewey, a Republican, both ran two rounds and faced rejection. Stalwarts like Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan encountered defeat in their trios of consecutive attempts. The voting community apparently prefers to keep away from political ‘losers’.
Against the backdrop of such a discouraging political landscape, Kamala Harris triggered speculations about her ambitions to return to the White House when she recently revealed her decision of refraining from the race for the Californian governorship. However, the current unpopularity of the Democratic Party, nearly triple that of the GOP, could potentially prove to be a roadblock.
The present dislike for the Democratic Party has reached a 35-year high due to the frustration simmering within the party members. They reproach their party for its defeat against Trump, and for being inadequate in terms of acting as an effective barrier to him once he assumed office. Though Harris cannot be solely blamed for all these issues, she has, unfortunately, become the symbol of Democratic dissatisfaction.
The extent and nature of this discontentment within the Democratic Party are far from being homogeneous. The more progressive elements within the party accuse it of not putting up a sufficiently vigorous fight. In sharp contrast, the centralists allege that the Democrats have veered too far left on cultural and identity politics, thereby pushing for the ‘wrong’ issues.
A resonating sentiment of both these factions within the Democratic Party is an intense craving for victory. Interestingly, one of the few reasons that place Harris potentially in the race for the 2024 nominee is her status as the diversity pick. Biden made it explicitly clear that he would select a female and eventually an African American running mate.
Harris, it appears, is being let down not by her gender or her race, but her perceived inadequacy to capture voters’ interest in a way that could bolster the Democratic alliance. If the Democrats are serious about winning, they would require a personality capable enough to attract and flip the Trump supporters.
Harris’s failure is not a result of a weak Democrat turnout; rather, she faltered owing to her inability to resonate with a rapidly evolving electorate. She appeared to bear resemblance to a college administrator from a modest liberal arts institution, based on her rhetoric.
Apart from her stand on reproductive rights, her convictions created an impression of being meticulously designed by focus groups, largely at a time when the voting community was desperate for authenticity. In fact, Harris fell even further in public esteem after she agreed to Joseph Biden’s demand that she refrain from distancing herself from him.
The implications were clear when Harris opted to feature on ‘The Late Show’ hosted by Stephen Colbert for her first interview since she stepped down from her office. It was perhaps intended to pander to Colbert’s ideologically devoted audience, however, that would hardly be the demographic that the Democrats need to court to win elections.
This is therefore, a cautionary sign that if the Democrats were to choose Harris once again as their representative, she might end up being a trivia question’s answer in the eventual political chronicles. Yet, the question inevitably wouldn’t be, ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’
The concerns about Harris and the Democrats go deeper than her personal deficiencies or the unpopularity of the party. She was chosen because she ticked the diversity checklist, not necessarily because she was the best candidate. Her nomination was an example of virtue signalling rather than based on merit.
In conclusion, this evaluation offers a sobering analysis for the Democrats and underlines a crucial aspect: Winning elections requires a deeply introspective look at their strategies and nomination process. The Democratic Party and its candidates, including Harris, have to appeal to a diverse electorate in substantial and meaningful ways, rather than merely paying lip service to diversity and inclusion.