William Henry Harrison, holding the title of the ninth U.S. President, was the last leader born under British jurisdiction and the original torchbearer of the Whig Party in the White House race. His inauguration speech surpassed all in length, clocking in nearly two hours, only to be followed by the shortest presidential tenure in history. He breathlessly passed away a scarce 31 days into his term, being the first incumbent president to do so. Some trivia about Harrison includes his unique achievement of being the latest politician to rebound from an initial defeat in a presidential contest, only to secure victory on the follow-up, a feat also accomplished by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson before him. Unlike, Richard Nixon who had to wait for a distant future for victory after defeat.
Only Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump managed to score, lose, and then regain the presidential title in an uncommon fashion. Most failed to navigate post-defeat rebounds. Every other aspirant since Harrison’s time, who tasted defeat in their first run and had another go in the subsequent election, had to swallow the singular bitterness of failure once more. Notable mentions include Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, who tasted defeat in two consecutive attempts. Similar fates awaited Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan – a triple disaster in a row. Clearly voters have shown little affection for those already marked in the ‘loser’ column.
Such precedent may not bode well for Kamala Harris, who recently decided against vying for the Californian governor position, inevitably sparking chatter about a possible second stab at the Presidency. This speculation comes at a time when the Democratic Party’s popularity seems to be spiraling down to a record low. The party has wrestled a net unfavorability of 30 points, close to triple that of the GOP’s unfavorable rating recorded at 11 points.
These dark days for the Democrats largely stem from internal discontent. A significant chunk of this hostility originates from their inability to put up a stronger challenge to Trump’s reign, despite their ultimate yet hollow victory. This dissatisfaction isn’t uniform across the party, however. The progressives amongst them believe that the party’s fight isn’t fierce enough while those leaning more towards the center argue that the Democrats are blowing their trumpets over the wrong issues, having overstepped towards left-leaning cultural wars and identity politics.
A unifying thread tying these opposing factions is their intense craving for success. It’s almost an open secret that one of Harris’ key potential leverage as a contender for the 2024 nomination was her ticket as the diversity candidate. Now, it’s important to note that it’s neither her race nor gender that’s preventing her ascendance, but her lack of an expansive appeal that could broaden the voter coalition required for a Democratic victory.
The pressing need for the Democrats is a charismatic candidate who could stage a dramatic turnaround by capturing the Trump-supporting segment. Unfortunately, Harris’ failure wasn’t due to a lack of Democratic zeal but rather her unexciting presence in the eyes of a dynamic and evolving electorate. Her demeanour and communications resembled that of a university dean nestled in a small liberal arts institution – a picture far from the image that the voters were longing for.
Adding to her woes, her otherwise potent stances felt as if they emerged from managed and prepared focus groups rather than genuine insights, at a time when voters yearned for authentic representations. The irony of her current predicament is further compounded as she conceded to Joe Biden’s demands that she refrain from creating distance between them, instead of letting her unique persona shine, possibly hindering her growth in the process.
Harris’s tactical decision to choose ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert for her debut interview post stepping-down didn’t do much to improve her position. Although such a platform may have delighted the ideologically committed cluster of Colbert’s audience, it’s not the crowd that the Democrats need in their corner for a win. If anything, it may have further alienated the broader voter base, making her seem out of touch.
Indulging in this sort of strategy pushes her further into a tight corner. If Democrats decide to back her once more in the presidential race, she might cement her name in history, not as a trailblazing leader but as a remarkable answer to a trivia question.
Looking at the circumstances and precedents, it does seem clear that a strategy of ridicule and condescension would not be out of place for an unsuccessful attempt to appeal to the electorate. Clearly, misplaced priorities and the inability to resonate with voters are more problematic than the surface-level demographics of a candidate, as Harris’ case evinces.
In the current political climate, it’s refreshing to see that artificiality and a lack of authenticity don’t bode well with the majority. Picking a candidate based purely on diversity checkboxes, as Biden seems to have done with Harris, isn’t the silver bullet to solve the party’s problems – in fact, it appears to be part of the problem.
As we anticipate the 48th presidency of the U.S., it certainly seems a slim chance that Harris would have the honor of answering that trivia question. What the Democrats really need is an about-face. They need to take stock, understand their real issues, and perhaps most importantly, realize that changing the perceptions of an astute electorate requires more than just a racial or gender-based representative figure.
The future of both Harris and the Democrats remains uncertain and a cause for speculation. Much will depend on whether they can learn from the mistakes of the past and break away from cosmetic fixes and diversity tokens to a comprehensive and authentic approach that resonates with the multitude of voters they hope to represent.
The post Kamala Harris: Doomed to Repeat History in 2024 Presidential Race? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
