The American political history books detail William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. president, as the final chief commander who was initially a British citizen. Elevated to power as the inaugural representative of the Whig Party, Harrison famously holds the record for the lengthiest inaugural speech that lasted nearly two grueling hours. Unfortunately, his legacy is also marked by the brevity of his term, making him the first president to pass away while in office after only 31 days.
Harrison laid claim to a peculiar political legacy. He was the last president that failed in his initial nomination but secured victory in the consecutive one, a feat previously accomplished by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Not even Richard Nixon could replicate this achievement immediately, with his victory coming much later. Since Harrison’s day, every political candidate who has faced defeat in their first election and subsequently rerun in the following one has witnessed a similar setback.
In contrast, Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump exhibited a unique electoral cycle—both won, then lost, and subsequently reclaimed the presidency. It seems voters hold a low tolerance for ‘losers’, judging by historical trends. Candidates who suffer recurring losses are evidently less popular among the electorate. For instance, Adlai Stevenson from the Democratic Party and Thomas Dewey from the Republican Party both experienced double losses, with Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan facing defeat thrice consecutively.
This pattern doesn’t bode well for Kamala Harris. Her recent decision to forego the California gubernatorial race has led many to speculate that she is overwhelmingly focused on the presidency. However, the Democratic Party’s popularity is in severe downturn, with a net favorability of negative 30 points, three times worse than the GOP’s negative 11 points. The party’s popularity has dropped to the lowest it has been in over three decades.
Frustration within the Democratic Party has been simmering due to past electoral failure against Trump and their perceived ineffectiveness in countering his presidency. It’s clear that the discontent isn’t unanimously attributed to Harris, yet her figure has become a symbol of this internal struggle. The party’s unrest stems from differences within its own factions. The left-leaning members are exasperated by the party’s perceived lack of aggression, while centrists believe they are spearheading futile causes by veering exceedingly left and succumbing to culture war and identity politics.
To resolve these internal conflicts, Democrats are united under a common desire—victory. It seemed that Harris had the potential to fulfill this ambition: as she was initiated as a nominee due to her diverse background. It was an explicit decision by Biden to elect a woman, specifically an African American, as his running mate.
However, Harris’ identity isn’t her primary challenge. Her lack of broader public appeal and her failure to extend the Democratic reach signifies her core issue. To capture the presidency, the Democrats need someone capable of snatching previous Trump voters. Harris failed to achieve this, not due to a decrease in Democratic turnout, but due to her inability to entice the evolving electorate.
The crux of the issue lies within Harris’ rhetoric, which often resembles that of an administrator at a niche liberal arts college. Except for stances surrounding reproductive rights, her speeches and ideals seem forced, resembling the compromise of focus groups in an era where voters are starved for authenticity.
Worse yet, Harris seems to be walking in Biden’s shadow, failing to distinguish her stance from his—a sign of weak leadership that’s unlikely to satisfy a desperate electorate. Her decision to sit down with Stephen Colbert for her debut post-office interview was emblematic. This type of audience caters perfectly to Colbert’s particular ideological viewers, but it’s certainly not the crowd Democrats need to overcome their electoral adversity.
So here’s the crux of the matter: if Democrats choose to nominate Harris, viewing her as the key to their victory, they do so at their peril. History, after all, doesn’t favor Harris given the precedents set by her political ancestors. Not to be ignored is the political fact that incumbent ‘losers’ historically do not perform well in subsequent presidential races.
Only time will tell if Democrats are willing to bend to the whims of history or whether they are daring enough to gamble their political future on Harris’ symbolic representation. Her administrative demeanor, coupled with the perception of walking in Biden’s shadow, certainly promotes pessimism of her prospects.
As the saying goes, history has a tendency to repeat itself, and the historical shadow that William Henry Harrison casts today seems unlikely to be disrupted. And the stakes are not in Harris’s favor, especially given the rapid and unprecedented evolutions coursing through today’s electorate.
So, if Democrats go with the historical flow and choose a nominee other than Harris, they might just reset their party’s standing. But if they insist on sticking with Harris, they run the risk of sealing their fate as a party known for putting symbolism over substance.
In conclusion, should the Democrats nominate Harris again, there’s a possibility her legacy would be relegated to a trivia question, instead of claiming the title of the 48th U.S. President.
The post Harris’ Weak Leadership: A Nightmare for Democrats appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
