William Henry Harrison, recognised as the ninth American president, was the final head of state born under the authority of the British Crown, and he was also the first to represent the Whig Party in the White House. His inaugural address, impressively extensive, stretched for almost two hours, marking it as the longest ever in history. However, his tenure in presidency didn’t mirror his inaugural address in length as it was tragically cut short. Merely 31 days into his term, Harrison became the first incumbent president to pass away. Furthermore, Harrison holds the unique distinction of being the last political figure to lose his initial attempt for presidency only to emerge victorious in the following electoral bout. This rare trajectory had been earlier accomplished by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson with Richard Nixon seeing success much later.
It is worthy to note that even though Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump were successful in attaining presidency, their journey was tainted by intermittent losses. However, for most others, an initial failure at the presidential race has meant a recurring phenomenon. For instance, Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey were both unsuccessful in their two attempts to climb the ladder to presidency. More notably, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan attempted to wade the waters thrice consecutively; nevertheless, each of their attempts ended in an electoral fiasco. It would seem that the voters have quite the aversion to backing the perennial learner.
The above historical perspective does not allow room for optimism for Kamala Harris’s political prospects. This can be interpreted from her recent decision to refrain from contesting the gubernatorial race in California. This has led to conjecture that her sights are likely set on the grand prize of the White House, which seems ill-advised.
Alarmingly, the Democratic Party, which Harris represents, is currently embroiled in rampant unpopularity. Their net favorability stands at an embarrassing negative thirty points, almost triple to that of the GOP’s negative eleven points. This marks the peak of the Party’s unpopularity over the past three-and-a-half decades.
The Democratic Party has unfortunately garnered the wrath of their own ranks for their twin failures against Trump. They are justifiably upset over their loss to him in the election and their continued inability to effectively counter Trump even in his current role.
But Harris cannot escape blame entirely. She embodies the dissatisfied quarters within the Democratic faction. However, the dissatisfaction is not homogeneous. The party progressives believe that the Democrats have lost the flair to fight. In contrast, the moderate section of the party finds undeniable fault in what the Democrats are championing, claiming that the Party has gravitated excessively towards cultural disputes and identity-related politics.
The shared denominator among these disparities lies in their mutual hunger for victory. The only substantial explanation for Harris’s positioning in the potential list of nominees for the 2024 race was due to her identity as a diverse candidate.
Biden had made it abundantly clear that his vice presidential pick would be a woman, and, subsequently, an African American colleague. Thus, the issues with Harris are not linked to race or gender, but primarily her inability to win over voters in a manner that would broaden the Democratic coalition.
If the Democrats are to strike gold, they need a candidate who can convince former Trump supporters to switch sides. Harris’s failure wasn’t borne out of lack of Democratic enthusiasm, but her inability to resonate with an evolving electorate. Her rhetoric was akin to that of a dean at a provincial liberal arts college. It simply failed to form a bond with the voters.
Apart from her principles on reproductive rights, most of her ideologies appear as if they were carefully crafted following focus groups, just when the voters desired authenticity the most. Adding insult to injury, Harris capitulated to Biden’s insistence that she refrain from distancing herself from him, detracting from her individual appeal.
The choice of ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert for her first interview after leaving office gives this stance further credence. While Colbert’s committed audience might lap up such content, the Democrats need to appeal to a substantially wider base if they want to win.
Amid this backdrop, if the Democratic Party decides to put Harris forward as their nominee once more, she will probably be remembered as a novelty, relegated to an obscure trivia fact. Most certainly, the answer to the inquiry ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’ won’t likely be Kamala Harris.
The post Kamala Harris’s Political Downfall: A Historical Perspective appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
