Kamala Harris: A Symbol of the Democrats’ Lost Direction
Reflecting back on America’s ninth president, William Henry Harrison’s exceptional tenure adds an intriguing insight into U.S. political history. Harrison stood as an illustrious Whig Party figure, capturing the presidency as the first of his party to do so, and while he made history with the longest inaugural speech on record, his presidency, unfortunately, was shockingly short-lived. Outlasting only 31 days, Harrison was the first president in history to pass away in office. His initial electoral journey wasn’t as smooth as people assume; he lost his first shot at presidency only to make a victorious comeback in the subsequent election, validating the phrase ‘every cloud has a silver lining’.
This happened to be a rare occurrence as future politicos, barring Jefferson and Jackson, who experienced loss in their initial run, generally weren’t welcomed with a triumphant note in their subsequent attempt. Even Richard Nixon had to bide his time before securing an elusive win. The unique winning-losing-winning cycle was only completed twice, by Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump. For the rest of the presidential hopefuls, history hasn’t been kind to top-tier candidates who experienced defeat in their debut attempt. Losing twice in a row unfortunately became a bitter pill for Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey.
Kamala Harris, the incumbent vice president, is another frontrunner whose name was making news with speculations flying high about her candidacy in California’s gubernatorial race. However, she proved the rumor-mill wrong, culminating in more whispers about her second run for the highest office on Capitol Hill. Her decision to dodge a gubernatorial campaign rekindles the unsolvable question concerning Harris’ impact on the evidently unpopular Democratic party.
The party’s predicament is clearly evident in their abysmal net favorability score — a sluggish minus 30 points, nearly threefold inferior compared with their Republican counterparts. The Democrats are grappling with an internal crisis along with their diminishing external popularity, marked by disillusionment and resentment. With antipathy toward former President Trump remaining an underlying common denominator, the intra-party conflict is divided along the progressive-centrist binary.
Frustration runs at an all-time high among the Democratic progressives with their own party, accusing them of lacking the zeal for a political fight. Concurrently, the party’s centrist wing isn’t too satisfied either, grumbling about the Democratic party’s preoccupation with socio-cultural and identity politics, a perceived vault to the left.
However, the one glue holding both factions together is the shared aspiration for victory. Shockingly, the only rationale for Kamala Harris to pave a path towards the 2024 presidential nomination stems from her diversity credential, gifted by Biden’s strategy of selecting a woman and further, an African American running mate. However, her ethnicity and gender are not the issues that the electorate questions, it’s her ineffective appeal to a broader voter base that troubles the party.
Winning back the lost Trump voters remains an uphill task for the Democrats, something that they don’t see happening under the potential leadership of Harris. Voters did not reject her due to lackluster Democratic participation; her failure stems from a lack of effective engagement and appeal to an evolving voter demographic. Harris’ discourse often displayed platitudes, creating an image similar to a university administrator, lacking the compelling aura necessary for electoral victories.
Compounding her damages was her decision to bend to Biden’s will, failing to establish a distinct political identity. People found her reliance on focus-group insights and attempt to mimic popular sentiments less authentic and, hence, less attractive. The Democratic party’s need to win requires an appeal beyond ‘the usual suspects’, something largely missing in Harris’s strategy.
Her problematic first public interaction post-office, facilitated by Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’, indeed garnered applause from Colbert’s demographic but failed to meet the tastes of the diverse electorate that the Democratic party needs to champion. Colbert’s committed followers naturally absorbed Harris’ message, but this isn’t the crowd that the Democrats need to woo for a win.
It seems the Democratic ship may continue to list if Harris is chosen as their nominee again, unfortunately turning her into a political trivia answer rather than a revered figure. And the question definitely won’t be, ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’ Should this be the case, it could turn the page on a chapter in U.S. history, one where a solid chance to reshape America’s future under promising and dynamic leadership was unfortunately missed.
To add insult to injury for the Democratic party, their popularity now stands at its nadir over the past 35 years. Intra-party conflict and an underwhelming leadership continue to drain their collective moral. The Democrats are battling both a failure to offer adequate resistance to Trump and a reluctance to undertake substantial self-review in the wake of their election loss.
It’s clear that the chalice of the Democratic discontent is held by none other than Kamala Harris. The position she symbolizes within the party is not uniformly shared but significantly divided. The discontent across the Democratic sections only fortifies the narrative of Harris’ limited appeal, marking her as a symbol of a party lost in its direction and versatility.
Ultimately, Harris’ failure to resonate with a changing electorate underscores her shortcomings as a potential candidate. In this milieu, the Democratic party finds itself in a catch-22: fostering a desire to win, they yet face the challenge of announcing a compelling personality able to mobilize an increasingly unsettled electorate. Unless they manage this balancing act, the echoes of ‘Harris for President’ might falter even before they reach the voting booths.