Kamala Harris, A Disappointment Echoing the Democratic Doom

William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. president, is known for many distinctions, notably being the final leader to be birthed as a British subject and the paradigm of the first Whig Party member obtaining the presidential mantle. His place in history is solidified not only by his record-length inaugural oration, but also tragically by the brevity of his tenure given his untimely death merely a month into his term.

Harrison’s story also resonates as the last tale of political resilience, where a candidate faced an initial defeat in their bid for presidency only to conquer in the subsequent round. Prior to him, the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were cowboy-edged examples of such political resurrection. For most politicians beyond the Harrison epoch, a first attempt ended in repeated failure, making his story all the more unique.

This historical pattern might give Vice President Kamala Harris reason to mull over her political ambitions. Despite being a significant figure in the Democratic Party, her announcement not to run for the gubernatorial position in California has stirred gossip about her aspiring again for the top position at the White House.

Sadly for her, the Democratic Party’s popularity indices aren’t painting a rosy scenario. The party is experiencing a discomforting period of unfavorable net approval ratio, almost triple that of their counterparts. This level of unpopularity has not been experienced in nearly three decades.

The resentments within the party faithful are evident – disappointment in their shocking loss to Trump and lackluster opposition to Trump’s policies when he helmed the powers. While this criticism isn’t solely Harris’ burden to bear, she indubitably represents the collective chagrin within the party.

This dissatisfaction isn’t a homogenous narrative, though. From the progressives’ viewpoint, the Democrats aren’t being assertive enough in the political battlefield. For the centralists within the party’s ranks, the bone of contention is the skewed focus on cultural battles and identity politics, viewing it as a significant deviation to the left.

Seems like the only thing uniting these contrasting sects of the party is a shared hunger for victory. Harris’ candidacy for the 2024 presidential nomination was, in large part, due to the tepid diversity quotient. Biden’s intention of nominating a woman and eventually an African American as a running mate is testament to this.

Therefore, Harris’ greater problem, overshadowing her gender and racial background, is her inability to resonate with the electorate beyond the Democratic bastion. An imperative for the Democrats’ comeback will be the ability of their chosen candidate to edge Trump’s voters towards their stand.

Ironically, Harris’ defeat wasn’t borne out of low Democratic turnout, but rather her inability to maintain traction with an evolving plethora of voters. Her dialogues often came across as academic discourses suited for a liberal arts college, devoid of widespread appeal.

Further amplifying this disconnect was the perception that her positions often appeared to have been refined by focus groups rather than bearing the stamp of authenticity. In an era where voters are seeking genuineness in their leaders, this perceived lack came at a considerable cost.

To add insult to injury, Harris opted not to distance herself from Biden. This choice, although may have seemed strategic, put down deeper roots in her perceived lack of independent opinions and positions, further weakening her rapport with the electorate.

In a poignant illustration of her political inclinations, Harris chose Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ for her debut interview since stepping down. While the platform might have been a hit with Colbert’s partisan audience, it’s definitely not the demography that the Democrats need to conquer to win.

If the Democrats decide to field her again in a future election, their strategy may consign Harris as merely an answer to a political trivia questionnaire. And, there’s an air of certainty that the question she’ll be tied to won’t be, ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’

This iteration of the political narrative doesn’t look promising for Harris. Aligning too closely with unpopular opinions and an unpopular president is perhaps not the most strategic route to another run for the office.

The lessons from history, especially the tale of Harrison, carry a profound instruction. A comeback could be possible for Harris, but it certainly won’t be guaranteed unless substantial changes are made to her approach and her appeal to a broader voter base.

Her existing narrative, resembling more an echo than a voice in the political landscape, will need substantial rewriting. Otherwise, Harris may never rise above her current status – a symbol of disappointment for a disenchanted party.