William Henry Harrison, our ninth president, held the record for both the longest inaugural address in history, clocking in at a near two hours, and the shortest presidential term, with his unexpected death just 31 days into office. He stands as a historical anomaly as the most recent occupier of the White House born a British subject and the first representative of the Whig Party to secure the presidency.
Harrison also marked the end of an era, being the last politician to win the presidency after initially experiencing defeat. His predecessors, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, had also won after initially losing, albeit not directly in the subsequent election like Harrison. Since Harrison, no politician running for president in the following election after a defeat has been successful.
Except for two notable instances, Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump, both of whom won the election, lost the subsequent one, and then scored a second term further along the line. The uncompromising trend of ‘second-chance’ failures doesn’t bode well for those toying with a re-run; voters’ seeming intolerance for electoral ‘losers’ is a stark reality check for anyone defeated in their first presidential bid.
Democratic stalwarts such as Adlai Stevenson and Thomas Dewey fell victim to this phenomenon, each running twice with defeat marking their efforts. Going further, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan took things to another level, finding themselves in the race thrice and losing each time. The resounding message from voters seems to be a disinterest in backing those who have previously lost.
Against this historical backdrop, Kamala Harris may find herself in an unenviable position. Rumors abound last week following her announcement that she would not seek the governor’s seat in California, suggesting she intends to take another shot at the Oval Office.
Yet, worrying trends cast a cloud over any prospective Harris bid. The Democratic Party is grappling with soaring unpopularity, emblematic of a party suffering an identity crisis. A net favorability rating plunging to negative 30 points, a deterioration nearly triple of its GOP counterparts, paints a dismal future. This marks the lowest popularity the Democratic Party has faced in the last three and a half decades.
Disturbingly for the Democrats, disaffection is running deep within their own rank and file. The inability to defend against Trump’s emergence and a perceived lack of resistance to his administration’s policy platform once in office have fueled the growing dissatisfaction. While it’s inappropriate to blame Harris entirely for these cracks, her rise within the party has somewhat mirrored its deteriorating fortunes.
Harris, placed in the crucible of this Democratic unrest, faces a gauntlet of challenges. To the progressives within the party, irritation stems from a perceived lack of fight against their political adversaries. The more centrist members despair over what they view as the party’s misplaced efforts, instead concentrating on ‘culture wars’ and identity politics. Despite their ideological differences, the desire to secure a win unifies both sides.
Harris’ precarious position stems as much from her symbolism as a diversity candidate as from her common association with Democratic discontent. The fact that Harris found herself likely to be the 2024 nominee was less borne out of organic popularity, but more out of a contrived diversity quota. Biden’s clear intention to choose a female, and then specifically an African American running mate, says it all.
But this isn’t the heart of Harris’ issue. Her challenge resides in her inability to drive an expansive appeal to voters that would broaden the party’s demographic. Harris’ failure in this can’t be chalked up to her skin colour or gender; instead, it lies in her inability to engage differing voter groups. As politics evolve, the Democrats would have to convince Trump voters, not an easy feat considering Harris’ inability.
The primary cause for Harris’ dive in popularity was not a dip in Democratic turnout but her lackluster appeal to an electorate hungry for change. Her rhetoric, cloying and reductive, evoked images of a college dean at a small, niche liberal arts campus. Aside from her stance on reproductive rights, her methods reflected a misunderstandable distance – opinions seemingly manufactured by focus groups when authentic connection was needed.
Adding insult to injury, Harris chose to defer to Biden’s demand about not establishing any political distance between them. Her subsequent decision to engage in an interview on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ exposed a pandering to an already ideologically captive audience, ignoring the wider partisan audiences vital for any electoral success.
If the Democrats choose to back her once more, they risk making her a mere footnote in the history books, rather than a blueprint for their future success. Only time will tell, but the question that may be on everyone’s lips might not be ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’
The post Kamala Harris’ Unlikely Path Back to the White House: A Warning Sign for Democrats appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
