William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. president, was a peculiar figure in the national narrative. He was the concluding commander in chief born a British citizen and is the historic first from the Whig Party to secure the presidency. Harrison holds two unique records: he spoke the lengthiest inaugural discourse, clocking nearly two hours, and experienced the shortest presidency with his untimely death just a month into his term. A streak of bad luck followed Harrison, as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson demonstrated their political prowess by overcoming their electoral losses to winning in their subsequent terms, a feat Harrison was unfortunately denied.
Fast forward to our contemporary political climate, and it appears that voters are less forgiving and more dismissive of ‘second chances’. Republican leader Richard Nixon is the exception who rose from the ashes of an electoral failure to claim a victorious presidency later. Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump are both unique cases: winning, then losing, and then emerging victorious yet again. However, these are exceptional cases and can hardly serve as a hopeful narrative for other candidates.
If we look at the political scorecard, it is littered with names like Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, who each made attempts twice but tasted defeat on both occasions. Likewise, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, running thrice all in vain, essentially stamped the perception that voters are not partial to election losers. This certainly does not bode well for Kamala Harris, who recently declared she would refrain from seeking the position of Californian governor, raising rumors of potential presidential aspirations.
As it stands, the Democratic Party is not enjoying much favor among the masses. With net popularity plunging by a staggering 30 points, the party is bearing the brunt of its most extensive unpopularity in the past three and a half decades. This growing disenchantment is not aimed at individual members of the party, but passionately directed at the party as a whole that has disappointed voters for its failure to hold Trump at bay while also suffering a resounding defeat.
The tasks that lie ahead for Harris are certainly not easy. She finds herself standing as a symbol of the internal angst that runs deep within the Democratic Party. This sentiment is not uniform and originates from myriad grievances that different factions within the party hold. The radical faction dreads that Democrats are not offering a firm enough resistance to their rivals, while the more moderate wings express dissatisfaction at the misplaced priorities of a party that is too invested in cultural warfare and identity politics.
However, a vehement shared aspiration to conquer electoral battles unites all these identified factions within the Democratic Party. Ironically, Harris, being seen as a ‘diversity pick’ for the 2024 nomination, represents this internal fragmentation. Joe Biden’s emphasis to choose a woman, and later specifically an African-American woman, as a running mate places her in a delicate position. Her setbacks cannot be traced back to her race or gender, but rather her disconnection with the voting demographics.
The Democrat electoral strategy needs an overhaul to turn the tide in their favor. It is essential for them to rally someone who can bring back voters from the Trump camp. Harris’ electoral disappointment does not stem from low Democratic turnout – it is a result of her disconnect with an evolving electorate which finds her rhetoric more suited to a student dean’s office at a tiny liberal arts college rather than a presidential candidate.
A close analysis of her convictions inadvertently draws parallels to focus group results, underlining the political vacuum of genuine authenticity that voters perceive in her. In addition, her calculated choice to abstain from establishing a distinct identity apart from Biden reveals a lack of initiative on Harris’ part to outline her own political playbook. This decision only further cements her image as an uninspiring candidate in a political era where voters yearn for originality and authenticity.
Harris’ decision to select ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert as the platform for her first interview post-office was a misfire. The show’s viewership consists primarily of people committed to ideology, but it’s not the demographic that Democrats need to convince for an electoral victory. With such miscalculations, it becomes clearer why Democrats would face an uphill battle if they were to nominate Harris for the presidency again.
If the Democrats continue endorsing Harris, there is a substantial risk that she may be relegated to becoming trivia fodder rather than a successful presidential candidate. And the trivia question that future generations could be asked will not be ‘Who was the 48th President of the United States?’ History might not judge her kindly if she doesn’t change her approach and connect with the larger voting demographic.
The post Democratic Dismay: Harris’ Unambitious Political Playbook appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
