WHEN LAST I wrote specifically about the top of the ticket in the campaign to be the next President of the United States, I ventured that Democrats had the advantage in the wake of a debate in which Kamala Harris defeated Donald Trump. I was not wrong then, but the momentum of Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, has apparently dissipated.
In late summer, after the vice president had replaced her boss, Joe Biden, as the Democratic Party’s chosen one, progressives were hugely enthused. There was a massive infusion of cash and thousands of volunteers signed up. The aggregated polling data moved slowly, yet surely, in the direction of Harris/Walz in the crucial battlegrounds. Those in America and internationally who fear Trump’s returning to the White House were daring, albeit prematurely, to breathe a shared sigh of relief.
The Harris/Walz energy and buzz have waned. Their gains have evaporated and, it can be cogently argued, the figures are receding to where they were when the beleaguered President Biden was presumed to be the Democrats’ standard bearer. Harris did not do a Fox News interview or float the idea of being a guest on Joe Rogan’s podcast because her strategists are confident of her position. This fight is, looked at in a light most favourable to Harris/Walz, a 50/50 proposition. It’s a toss-up with merely a couple of weeks to go.
A vast audience of astonished spectators, who fret that it is eminently possible that Donald Trump will again be elected the leader of the Western world, ask why? They refer to a litany of despicable past and present words and actions, and what they perceive to be proof of his mental decline. Hence, they cannot fathom how the people of the US could still say “Yes, he’s our man.”
What follows is an attempt to explain, in relatively short shrift, the complex state of play that has led us to where we are. That entails an examination, first, of the sources of and reasons behind Trump’s persistent appeal and, second, of Harris’s failings and weaknesses as a contender.
As for the bombastic billionaire, he came down a Trump Tower escalator in 2015 to announce what the commentariat dismissed as a quixotic ego trip in possession of an acute awareness of the widespread negative, forlorn mood and a willingness to capitalise on it for political profit.
His opponents must give the devil his due: he knew how seriously countless were hurting; he copped that the optimistic rhetoric of the major parties was off the mark in myriad respects; and he was prepared to offer simple solutions to a citizenry enamoured of celebrity and soundbites.
The wounds inflicted by globalisation and technology, deepened by tax and trade policies which were endorsed by Democrats and Republicans alike and which exacerbated inequality – together with a simmering racial divide and resentment at the gradual darkening of the average American’s skin complexion precipitated by immigration across the Mexican border – were ripe for manipulating. Millions wanted the radical surgery advocated by “Doctor” Trump.
And even if they didn’t fully accept that he could do what he pledged – for example, “build that wall” – they agreed with the sentiments buttressing the mantras and appreciated that Trump was talking to, not at, them. When all of this was supplemented by a persuasive pitch to social and religious conservatives that he would do what his predecessors had promised, yet did not prioritise, the foundation for a potent political movement was laid.
The more traditional conservative enemies of its goals have long tried to demonise it and allege that Trumpism has been the path to ruin for a GOP that has been the victim of a hostile takeover. The only route to redemption, they cry out, is to restore normality and the “decent Republicanism” embodied by Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr and Jr, John McCain and Mitt Romney. They are vocal and they have untrammelled access to important platforms to espouse their criticisms, but they are a tiny minority and they are wrong, politically at least.
Opinion surveys consistently show that most grass-roots conservatives are firmly in Donald Trump’s corner. Lots had come to reject the elitism and intellectualism of the Washington, DC-based right and voted dispassionately for those embraced by the hierarchy, such as McCain and Romney, who were the lesser of two evils in their hearts. They are far more enamoured of Trump’s admittedly impure “turn back the clock” brand of conservatism and its tactically brilliant sloganeering: “Make America Great Again” and “America First.”
Detractors from an array of ideological perspectives describe prominent Republicans as “cowards” for not standing up to Trump and Trumpism. They are appalled by the individual in private. That said, US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his ilk refuse to condemn him when the microphone is on because of the extraordinary personal loyalty he commands from their faithful and how lucrative their party’s pivoting since his improbable rise has proven.
It was once inconceivable that the GOP would be the home of the white working class; that it would make such inroads with the fastest growing constituency in the US, Latinos, as well as with other new immigrant communities; and that a surprisingly sizeable cohort of Black Americans would opt to give the party a chance. Simultaneously, a large swathe of the “old school” have stayed onside on economic, tax and related grounds, even as they lament Trump’s lack of moral character and are not fans of his number two, Ohio Senator JD Vance.
Factoring in all of these considerations, Trump and Trumpism – regardless of one’s attitude toward him and the style and substance of his messaging – constitute a political juggernaut, especially in a contest where the result is dictated by Electoral College maths. To beat their foe in 2024, the Democrats had to send forward their best.
That’s why Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama et al pushed hard for Biden to abandon his bid for another term. They were cognisant that the fading octogenarian wasn’t up to the task. At this juncture, though, similar doubts are surfacing as to whether Kamala Harris can pull off a victory. Some influential Democrats are reportedly voicing concerns that the accomplished woman of colour is not faring well under the media glare and that she should have picked Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to bolster her odds of prevailing in that vital state.
There are a few inconvenient truths here. First, the biggest quandaries facing the US – inflation and immigration – work against Harris. The cost of goods and services has exploded during the tenure of this administration. Plenty of Americans are legitimately pissed off and aren’t swayed by the contentions that this has affected everyone, everywhere and is easing in the US. They are not better off than they were four years ago and believe the incumbent president’s deputy is blameworthy.
In the same vein, the numbers entering the country illegally have surged dramatically with Biden/Harris in office, straining some communities and leading very many to desire a halt to immigration, temporarily or permanently. They think she is partly responsible. It is tough for Harris, who was delegated the border as an aspect of her brief, to deny all political culpability for what is objectively a mess.
She definitely didn’t aid her cause on either quagmire by commenting on ABC’s “The View” that she’d have done “not a thing” differently than President Biden. The experienced erstwhile prosecutor’s dreadful reply to a query that is unavoidably tricky for her, but to which she should have a stock response, is symptomatic of what is inescapable: Harris is just not a strong candidate.
She is poor on her feet. She struggles to answer probing questions. There is an authenticity deficiency, compounded by her flip-flops on key issues. Harris is not the nominee because she emerged from a competitive primary process in which she vanquished a field of qualified, impressive rivals. She instead benefitted from unprecedented, time-sensitive circumstances.
And regrettably for Democrats, Harris’s greatest success to date – a solid, winning performance in the debate with Trump – paid scant dividends. That any bounce was insignificant and fleeting must be incredibly deflating for liberal activists who have rallied to her and were initially ecstatic that she would be the person to finally eliminate the threat to democracy they see in Trump.
Third, on a range of topics, particularly when it comes to the culture wars, Harris is way to the left of the consensus of those who inhabit the territory that means most on 5 November. Whether it is Black Lives Matter, gender identity, what should and should not be taught in the public schools, the holiday originally intended to celebrate Christopher Columbus or a host of additional “hot button” stuff – all of which feature uniquely centrally on the agenda when ballots are cast in the US – Harris is of her hometown, San Francisco. That’s readily exploitable, to her grave detriment. Democrats more broadly are also feeling the heat on this front.
In a nutshell, then, that’s my assessment of why Harris vs Trump is on a knife edge. Harris’s acolytes and defenders may immediately retort that the above analysis is profoundly unfair to her. In a vacuum, that critique is not wholly lacking in merit. It neglects, however, certain facts. Remember: we live in the world as it is, not as we wish it were.
Yes, Harris is held to a higher standard. Yes, there are elements of racism and sexism lurking there. Yes, Trump is a bad guy, totally amoral, a convicted felon, not someone fit to occupy any elected office, never mind the presidency.
Conversely, the incontrovertible evidence is that it doesn’t matter a damn politically what Trump says or does; he plays the game by a set of rules he makes up as he goes; he has the unwavering fidelity of disciples who would literally jump from a cliff if he asked them to; and loads of quieter, self-interested, ruthlessly transactional Americans who don’t attend his rallies support him, too.
The evaluations of the polls from the two camps are fascinating. Team Trump/Vance maintain robustly that they are ahead, citing the extent to which the popularity of the ex-star of “The Apprentice” is typically underestimated, as is the unknown quantity of shy Trump voters. They are hoping that, among other demographics, an abundance of comfortable suburbanites fall into this category.
Harris/Walz allies assert that they alone have the capacity to expand the electorate and to get young, heretofore apolitical people to do their civic duty with the assistance of invaluable surrogates like former Presidents Obama and Clinton and the pop sensation, Taylor Swift. The Democrats have a superior get out the vote operation. Further, they claim that the fury of women stemming from the reversal of Roe v Wade by a US Supreme Court majority with three Trump-sponsored justices is not captured and will propel their duo over the line.
The contrasting interpretations are equally plausible. Which of them is closest to reality may tell the tale in an absolutely enthralling, immensely consequential race that seems destined for a photo finish.
Larry Donnelly is a Boston lawyer, a law lecturer at the University of Galway and a political columnist with The Journal.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say