Kamala Harris’ Pursuit of Biden’s Failure: Is History Repeating Itself?

William Henry Harrison, an important historical figure who was the ninth chief executive of our nation, holds a unique position as the last United States President born a subject to the British crown and the first representative from the Whig Party to gain the highest office. Harrison is known for his unprecedentedly lengthy inauguration speech that lasted for almost two hours and the unfortunate brevity of his presidency cut short by an untimely death just 31 days into his tenure.

A distinctive aspect of Harrison’s political journey is that he remains the last political aspirant to lose his inaugural presidential bid and win the subsequent one. While this feat was achieved by predecessors such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon stands out as an exception who managed to win after a significant time had elapsed between elections. Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump are the sole pair to win, lose, and then secure another victory. However, historical trends should alert us that aspiring individuals failing in their first run and attempting another shot in the immediate future generally face another defeat.

This exhibits a seemingly disapproving attitude of the politically engaged populace towards those previously unsuccessful. Notable examples such as Democrat’s Adlai Stevenson and Republican’s Thomas Dewey, having run twice with consecutive losses, as well as Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan with a string of three successive defeats, reinforce this trend. Accordingly, such historical records do little to bolster encouraging prospects for Kamala Harris.

Following Harris’s recent declaration refraining from entering the gubernatorial race in California, there have been conjectures and rumors about her possible aspiration for the presidency, again. These speculations become increasingly concerning when paired with the critical state of apparent unpopularity the Democratic Party presently finds itself embroiled in. At minus 30 points net favorability, it faces almost triple the unfavorability compared to the Republican Party, rated at minus 11 points.

Alarmingly, this negative perception surrounding the Democratic Party is more severe than ever in the past three and a half decades. A key driver appears to be resentment among Democratic supporters themselves — a certain disillusionment stemming from the party’s inability to effectively counter Trump during his tenure. Even though Harris can’t be solely held accountable for this discontent, she undoubtedly represents a symbolic figure of the Democratic Party’s internal turmoil.

The spirit of conflict pervading the Democratic Party is multifaceted. Progressive Democrats lament the party’s insufficient resistance against opposition, while the centrist segment perceives incongruity with the party’s choices of battles, criticizing an excessive deviance towards left-leaning discourse around cultural and identity politics. Despite the nuanced differences, these groups are unified by a desperate longing for electoral success.

It’s worth noting that Harris occupied a potential position as the 2024 nominee primarily due to her status as a pick of diversity. Biden’s declaration of selecting a female, and subsequently an African American vice-presidential candidate, cemented her standing. However, Harris’s challenges are not entwined with her race or gender but rather her deficiency in expanding the Democratic coalition’s appeal to voters.

To secure much-needed victories, the Democratic Party necessitates a figure capable of swaying Trump’s supporters. Let’s not forget, Harris didn’t fall due to a lack of Democratic support, but her inability to resonate with an evolving electorate. Her discourse often created an impression of a liberal arts college administrator, an image rather dissatisfying to a section of the voters craving authentic leaders.

Even more detrimental, her commitment towards maintaining an unbroken alliance with Biden, despite prevailing wisdom advocating some distance, further impacted her appeal. While her choice of Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ for her initial public appearance post-office seems appealing to Colbert’s steadfastly ideological audience, it’s a questionable strategy considering the broader Democratic audience necessary for electoral triumph.

Consequently, if Democrats decide to nominate Harris again, it could likely echo the proverbial trivial question in history. Unfortunately, the question won’t be her recognition as the 48th United States President but something significantly less distinguished.

Kamala Harris, trying to elicit some groundswell of support, seems to have ignored the broader Democratic demographic. Her reliance on Colbert’s polarizing platform points towards a blinkered approach, where she has failed to engage a wider audience with diverse inclinations. The Democratic Party, like any political entity, needs to appeal to a wide range of voters to ensure success. Harris’s choices seem bespoke for a very specific, and arguably limited, demographic.

Therefore, putting her forward as the Democratic candidate again seems dubious for the Party’s chances. Questions about her credibility and authenticity have been raised, and unfortunately, they have never been appropriately addressed. For the sake of the Democratic Party’s future, it would be worth reassessing whether a candidate who can appeal to wider masses should be front and center.

Essentially, it’s time for the Democrats to reassess their direction. Is it making sense to lean so heavily on identity politics when the broader electorate seems to demand more authenticity and a clearer focus on their tangible needs? These pointed questions put the Democratic Party in a challenging position. Their choices in the near future will signal their prioritization of electoral success versus adherence to certain ideological pillars.

Overall, the image Kamala Harris presents, riddled with inconsistencies and unconvincing rhetoric, puts her measurable distance from the image of a leader the electorate craves. Even if the decisions of the Democratic Party propelled her into the spotlight once, nominating Harris again could pose greater risks. For the wellbeing of the party and, indeed, the nation, one hopes the Democrats would seriously reconsider their strategy.