William Henry Harrison, despite holding the distinction of being the last U.S. president born under British domination, is unfortunately remembered more for his lengthy inaugural speech that lasted close to two hours and a tragically short presidential term, ending just 31 days post-inauguration in an untimely demise. His grip on the White House symbolized the initial triumph of the Whig Party. Notably, he pulled off a feat widely considered politically impossible – recovering from an electoral defeat to seize the crown in his subsequent attempt, a remarkable accomplishment achieved priorly by stalwarts like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.
However, emulating such a feat is a tall order in today’s political landscape. A cautious study reveals that since Harrison’s era, politicians who have tasted defeat in their initial presidential endeavour and opted to contest in the next election, have faced defeat again. Stubborn denials of this bitter truth have led stalwarts like Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey on a futile journey, twice. Heroes like Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan have succumbed to a similar fate, losing on all three occasions.
It follows then, to wonder about Kamala Harris’ future political aspirations. Speculation has been swirling around Harris’ decision to abstain from the California gubernatorial race, with pundits speculating another attempt at the presidency. Given the celebrated notion that voters generally frown upon those who accept defeat and run again, the odds don’t look encouraging for Ms. Harris.
A backdrop of an increasingly out-of-favor Democratic Party, sporting a dismal net favorability score that’s nearly thrice as low as the GOP’s, further complicates things. Matters have deteriorated significantly for the Democrats over recent years, with the last 35 years registering an all-time low level of popularity for their camp.
Dissatisfaction within the Democratic faction isn’t secret anymore. It’s an ugly reality they face. This notorious discontent, though, is nuanced, divided between moderates and progressives. Modest Democrats are discontented with the party’s misplaced focus — charging vehemently into culture wars and identity politics rather than addressing the concerns of broad citizenry. Progressives, on the other hand, question the party’s wavering ferocity.
For both streams of disquiet within the party, however, the common goal is victory. Yet, as we examine the current landscape, it appears that Kamala Harris’ position as a potential nominee for the 2024 presidential vote stands on flimsy ground. Instead of a testament to her political acumen or public appeal, her viability appears to hinge predominantly on the diversity card.
The woes for Ms. Harris aren’t rooted in her racial origin or gender, but her persistent inability to widen the Democratic voter base. A successful candidate should be capable of encompassing Trump’s followers under their flag, a feat that seems practically impossible for a candidate with Harris’ record. It wasn’t low Democratic turnout that led to her downfall, but her inability to connect with a progressively shifting electorate.
Harris’ public discourse often echoes feminist professors from little-known liberal arts colleges, a red flag for those craving authenticity in a potential leader. Her reliance on focus groups to shape her positions on all topics other than reproductive rights has done little to boost her reputation, leaving her seemingly disingenuous.
Regrettably, Harris has shied away from asserting independence from Joe Biden, despite Biden’s fading popularity threatening to drag her down with him. Biden’s insistence on her not distancing from him seems to have swayed her political strategy, much to the detriment of her image.
Another point to consider is her decision to pick ‘The Late Show’ hosted by Stephen Colbert as her first port of call post-resignation. It’s probable that such a strategic move entertained Colbert’s ideologically committed audience, but failed to cater to the wider voter base which is crucial for any Democrat victory.
Being in sync with an ideologically driven crowd isn’t identical to understanding the political demography of a nation as diverse as the United States. Democrats need to win over a larger base rather than pandering to a select ideological group. Following Harris’ past performance, any decision to nominate her again would likely throw them a tough road.
History is particularly unforgiving of failures. Repeated mistakes fade into obscurity, best remembered as answers to difficult quiz questions, far from the honor of real achievement. It’s with this in mind that Democrats should be very cautious; history rarely smiles upon those who do not learn from it.
Despite all the speculation, future outcomes remain uncertain. The question on everyone’s lips might end up having a disappointing answer. Will Harris ever become the 48th U.S president? Only time holds the answer, but for now, cautionary notes from historical patterns should not be taken lightly.
The post Harris’ Presidential Hope: An Exercise in Futility? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
