William Henry Harrison, our ninth U.S. president, formerly a British subject, cherished his claim as the first to belong to the Whig Party in the White House. He earned a peculiar fame for two extremes in his presidency: firstly, for his overly drawn-out inaugural address, stretching close to a staggering two hours, and secondly, for the briefest stint as president as he tragically succumbed to death a mere 31 days into his term. Remarkably, Harrison was the last political figure to experience defeat in his initial presidential run only to emerge victorious in the subsequent election. This feat had been previously achieved by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, while bad luck seemed to linger longer for Richard Nixon, who had to wait for quite a while before tasting victory.
The unique political trajectories of Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump note them as the exceptional duo to have won, been defeated, and then regained power. Since the Harrison era, any political hopeful who lost to an opponent in their primary bid for presidency and attempted to contest in the following election met with defeat once more. We’ve observed Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey throw their hats in the ring twice, only to face disappointment each time. Similarly, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan dared to attempt thrice, but all their efforts came to naught.
These examples serve as a grim reminder for Kamala Harris, as they do not bode well for her future political ambitions. Recently, Harris made news by announcing that she has no intentions of taking part in the race for California governorship, which fueled speculation over another potential bid for presidency. However, the prevailing unfavorable climate toward the Democratic Party could prove detrimental to her aspirations. The party is dealing with an unfavorable perception, facing a steep favorability deficit. Their popularity has nosedived significantly over the past 35 years.
The Democrats are facing backlash not only from the opposition but also from their own party, who are befuddled by their twin failures – their loss to Trump and their lack of resistance against Trump’s actions post the defeat. This internal discord is in no way a reflection on Harris’ individual capabilities. However, Harris serves as an emblem of the disgruntled inner sentiment within the Democratic quarters.
The discontent, although unified in its criticism of the party, is not homogeneous. The progressive wing believes that the Democratic party has lost its tenacity in the fight, while the party’s centrist faction is concerned that they are barking up the wrong tree, shifting their focus more towards culture war and identity politics, and less on other significant issues. However, these factions share a common, deep-seated aspiration for victory.
Harris’ position as a potential nominee for 2024 has largely been influenced by her having been picked as ‘representative of diversity’. Biden made no secret of his intent to elect a woman, preferably an African American, as a running mate. However, Harris’ difficulties are not rooted in her identity but rather in her inability to attract an extended Democratic coalition.
For a Democratic win, a leadership figure capable of pulling Trump’s voters to their side is needed, which Harris has shown to be incapable of. Her lack of appeal to the electorate, rather than low Democratic turnout, was what led her to her failure. The manner of speaking that she adopted was more in tune with what you would expect from a liberal arts college dean than a potential president, failing to resonate with the audience.
With the exception of her stance on reproductive rights, her professed convictions sound more like canned responses designed by focus groups than genuine, heartfelt beliefs. In an era where voters are yearning for authenticity, Harris offered none. To further complicate matters, Harris accepted Biden’s stipulation to not distance herself from him.
The decision she made to grant her first post-retirement interview to Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ was quite revealing. While this would certainly guarantee applause from among Colbert’s partisan listeners, the ones they need to convince to secure a win are quite a different audience.
If the Democrats go ahead and nominate Harris again, history may remember her only as a curiosity, a trivia question perhaps. Certainly, it’s hard to imagine that the question would ever be, ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’ Given the track record of those who have tried and failed, only to try again, it seems unlikely that Harris’ political future will mirror that of Harrison. Rather, she stands to become just another statistic, a symbol of the Democratic Party’s inability to learn from their past.
The Democratic party could do with a larger analysis of their situation, as their current path sees them catering only to a specific user base, much like Colbert’s show. The need here is a broad-based approach to attract the diverse and changing electorate, not just cherry-picking out of political convenience.
Harris’ political future, and indeed the future of the Democratic Party, rests on them understanding these factors, adopting a more inclusive approach, and working towards rebuilding the party’s public perception. Lest they learn these lessons, history is sure to repeat itself.
As it stands, there’s little encouragement for Harris to reconsider another presidency run. As the Democratic Party contends with its own woes, Kamala Harris will do well to reflect upon the wisdom of the past presidents and tremendous strategic reforms are urgently needed to change the narrative. Baffling decisions and uninspired leadership, if not corrected, could easily turn Harris from a diversity symbol into a symbol of repeated failure.
The post Harris’ Political Ambition: A Road to Inevitable Failure? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
