William Henry Harrison, the United States’ ninth president and last British subject born leader, had a unique tenure. He served short, tragically cut short by his premature death in office, lasting just 31 days. He was the first Whig Party member to helm the White House, his inauguration notable for its record-breaking lengthy address. His electoral journey was also positionally distinct; he was the last figure in politics who, after losing his preliminary presidential race, won the subsequent election. This success was previously seen with Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, while Richard Nixon only secured a win much later.
Few others have had such luck after an initial defeat. Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump, in particular, have had a zigzag pattern – win, loss, and win again. But for most, from Harrison’s time onward, a first electoral outrage typically spelled doom for subsequent attempts. This is underscored by the losses of well-known Democrats Adlai Stevenson and Republicans like Thomas Dewey, who each faced defeat twice. More staggering were the triad failures of Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan.
The track records seem unpromising for Kamala Harris, who recently made headlines as she bowed out of the current governor race in California, triggering conjecture of another White House run. At a time when the Democratic Party struggles with staggering unpopularity-its net favorability plummeting to negative 30, thrice as bad as the GOP’s – this may be viewed as a move of a gamble.
Presently, the Democratic Party’s image is worse than it has been in the past three and a half decades. Democrats themselves vent their frustrations within the party for their loss to Trump and moreover, their inability to significantly obstruct his presidential infrastructure. Harris’s involvement in this debacle is non-distinctive.
The embodiment of Democratic dissatisfaction resides in Harris. However, this unhappiness varies throughout the party. The liberal members believe that their party is not putting up a robust enough fight, while those who lean toward the center perceive that the struggle is misdirected, with too much focus on identity politics and cultural battles.
Despite these contrasting viewpoints, both sides agree on one point – the burning desire to triumph. Harris’ past positioning as a potential 2024 nominee was largely due to her being a diversity symbol. Joe Biden had made it clear that his running mate selection would be a woman and ultimately an African American woman. However, Harris’s racial and gender identities are not the issues.
Her downfall is primarily her lackluster appeal; she fails to broaden the Democratic group’s reach. Her loss can’t be pinned on low Democratic turnout; rather, it’s due to her adamant inability to win over the ever-evolving electorate. One might argue that her speech approach sounds as if she’s addressing a demographic that leans heavily towards liberal arts, but not recognizable as presidential.
Besides, she seems devoid of strong convictions with the exception of reproductive rights, and often comes across as being reliant on focus groups for decision-making. This is detrimental, especially at a time when authenticity is highly sought after by the voting populace. To make matters worse, she has sided with Biden’s stance to not distance herself.
Her decision to give her inaugural post-office interview on ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert is telling. The audience she captivated there are ideologically committed individuals, hardly the spectrum Democrats need to win over for electoral victory. Caring too much about what classically left-wing audience’s think is hardly a winning electoral strategy.
Should Democrats put their faith in Harris again, history will likely remember her as a trivia question’s answer rather than a factor that changed the political scene. It’s safe to say that the question won’t be ‘Who was the 48th president of the US?’ but probably something more along the lines of ‘Who was the laughable candidate who was nominated twice despite standing no real chance of winning?’
In the grand annals of United States’ history, numerous political figures have managed to craft significant narratives. In the pantheon of Presidents, from Jefferson to Jackson, Nixon to Trump, electoral wins and losses have shaped the path of the nation’s polity. Yet, as we shift focus from these historical figures to the present day scenario, the specter of a failed candidacy, such as Harris’, looms large over the future of the Democratic Party.
Despite the hard-hitting reality of the Democratic Party’s dwindling favorability, its members remain hopeful of a reversal in fortunes. In the midst of the party’s heated internal debates, Harris stands out as a symbol of discontent rather than as a figure of promised change.
The undeniably strong craving for victory within the party stems from the need to redraw their lost grounds. It is this need that possibly led to Biden choosing Harris as a running mate under the premise of diversifying their appeal. However, Harris failed to deliver on this expectation.
Her rhetoric and stance, which tends to echo within the confined walls of a liberal arts college, was insufficient to sway the votes of a diverse and evolving electorate. Unless Harris manages to redefine her appeal and set a clear, viable path for the Democrats, her place in history will indeed end as a trivial question waiting for an answer.
For the Democratic Party, the road to recovery seems hard and arduous. They need to redefine their battle strategies, focusing not merely on diversity picks like Harris, whose optics, while attracting a certain demographic, have failed to expand the Democratic coalition. The challenge remains in finding the right leader who can appeal to a broad spectrum of voters and restore the Democrats to their pioneering position in the USA’s political landscape.
The post Kamala Harris: A Repeat Failure in the Making? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
