Kamala Harris: An Emblem of Democratic Desolation?

William Henry Harrison, our country’s ninth president, holds the paradoxical distinction of giving the longest inaugural address in U.S. history, and yet, ruling for the shortest period, after succumbing to a fatal illness a mere 31 days after taking office. This man, born while America was still under British rule, was recognized as the first representative of the Whig Party in the White House, and interestingly, the most recent one to bounce back from an initial presidential election defeat to clinch victory in a subsequent one. Marking historic exceptions to this trend, only Richard Nixon, Grover Cleveland, and Donald Trump managed to resurrect their presidential ambitions after losing a presidential election.

The above history lesson leaves an unpalatable taste for Kamala Harris, who recently stirred up rumors about her renewed presidential aspiration by deciding to not run for governorship in her home state of California. Countering this speculation, statistical trends from the past underscore that voters do not usually place their bets on previously unsuccessful candidates. As evidenced by the failed double attempts of Adlai Stevenson of the Democratic Party and Thomas Dewey of the Republicans, history is not kind to serial losers in presidential races.

More worrying for Harris and her supposed White House ambitions is the adamant unpopularity of her own Democratic Party. With a staggeringly low net approval rating, nearly triple that of its GOP counterpart, the Democratic Party is navigating the stormy seas of public disapproval. This level of public discontent is a high point not witnessed for the party in almost three and a half decades.

Why has this discontent festered? Well, Democrats have found themselves at odds with their own party, a bitterness stemming from their devastating defeat to Trump and their subsequent ineffectual resistance to his administration. However, this intra-party discord should not all be laid at Harris’ feet.

Indeed, Harris is more a symbol of this Democratic disillusionment than a cause of it. Unsurprisingly, this discontent is not one-dimensional but rather embodies differing frustrations across the party’s ideological spectrum. The progressive faction bemoans what they perceive as a lack of adequate pushback from the party, according to their standards of ‘hard-hitting’ politics. In contrast, the more moderate cadre views the party’s strategies as misplaced, arguing it has leaped too far into the maelzy arenas of cultural warfare and identity politics.

The glue that binds these factional dissatisfactions is a ripe, shared longing for victory. Harris’ most significant merit for the Democrats’ potential 2024 nomination was seen in her diversity, significantly because progressive Democrat Biden committed to selecting a female running mate, which he later amended to specify a woman of African American descent.

The issue for Harris, however, isn’t her race or gender per se. Rather, her challenge lies in her failure to resonate with electorates in a manner that widens the Democratic coalition. Simply put, for the Democrats to sculpt a winning path, they require a candidate capable of wooing the elusive Trump voter.

Harris’ downfall did not surface due to low Democratic engagement; instead, it signaled her inability to captivate an evolving electorate. Her public speeches and policy positions often struck a discordant note with voters, resembling more the administrative rhetoric of an academic dean at a small liberal arts college, than the politically galvanizing figure voters sought.

With blatant discrepancies in expressing genuine conviction on key issues except women’s reproductive rights, Harris often seemed tailored to fit focus group preferences, at a time when voters longed for authenticity. Worse still, Biden’s insistence that Harris not distance herself from him did nothing to bolster her individual appeal among voters.

Harris’ decision to choose ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert as the platform for her first post-office interview is as revealing as it is concerning. While it might delight Colbert’s committedly ideological audience, the reality is that this narrow segment does not represent the broad array of voters the Democrats must court to secure victory.

Endorsing Harris again may cement her place as a mere trivia in the annals of history, rather than a meaningful political figure. This brings us back to ponder, would she really attempt to defy the odds, both historic and present, to vie for the highest office in the land?

Given the state of the Democratic party and her own challenges, the road to the White House for Kamala Harris promises to be riddled with difficulties. It remains to be seen if the lessons from history and present realities will shape her political journey or if she will choose to contend against them. Who will take up the reins of the Democratic party in the future and their likelihood of success against their rivals is a pivotal question in the upcoming political scenario.

In conclusion, history doesn’t favor those who returned for another shot at the presidency after a failed attempt, and that certainly doesn’t bode well for Kamala Harris. With the Democrats’ popularity at an alarming low, and a deeply fragmented political party, the challenges facing her, or any Democratic candidate, may prove unsurmountable in the next electoral battle. Only time will tell how the Democrats tackle this uphill struggle in their quest to regain the White House.