Thursday, July 25, 2024

Can Kamala Harris win election running as a California progessive?

I hope Kamala Harris positions herself as a  centrist Democrat.

I hope she orients herself to winning votes in purple Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Doing what is popular requires that she disappoint some people.

I received an excellent comment posted to the substack version of this blog. (Substack is the place where people who get this blog primarily by e-mail comment.) Herb Rothschild is a retired professor and lifelong activist for peace, the environment, and racial justice. He wrote:

[Y]ou say, "The Clinton-Obama-Sanders-Elizabeth Warren style of Democrats represent the economic and cultural leadership of socially liberal college graduates." I can't understand that grouping, It was Sanders and Warren and others who pushed hard to return the Democrats to the New Deal commitment to economic equity, proper taxation, and corporate and financial regulation, which the Clintons and Obama had rejected.

Biden did not present himself during the 2020 campaign as nearly committed to the New Deal legacy as his main challengers, Sanders and Warren. He presented himself as the "centrist" candidate. And you were keen for him exactly for that reason, since you have a knee-jerk antipathy to the progressive wing of the party. . . . 

You have to be more careful in your description of alignments within the Democratic Party over time.

Herb Rothschild is right about my wariness about the progressive agenda as presented by Sanders and the leadership of national advocacy groups in the Democratic coalition. I want good policies to be enacted. That means that they need to be popular.

Bernie Sanders insisted on branding his policies "Democratic Socialism." He gets points for courage in his effort to de-stigmatize the word "Socialism," but he sabotages his agenda. He failed to sell it to America. He is from Vermont, where "Socialism" sounded OK. He had blue-state blindness. 

Biden is not a persuasive communicator, narrating to Americans the value of his policies. That void was filled by younger, more aggressive, more articulate spokespeople representing policy institutions in the Democratic coalition. We see them on MSNBC and read them in the mainstream news and in serious political magazines. They defined the Democratic brand. They have their legitimate causes and they believe they are representing progress and virtue. But advocacy group positions are not constrained by the need for getting elected. Their job is to push the boundaries of reasonable policy, not build a majority. The result is that voters still suspect that Democrats want to defund the police, when, in fact, Biden has the opposite view. It is why voters think that Democrats have stopped most drilling for oil in the U.S., when in fact under Biden we are producing more oil than ever. It is why voters suspect that Biden is perfectly happy to sacrifice objective merit in appointments to meet DEI objectives, when, in fact there is no shortage of highly qualified candidates available for him to appoint to meet Biden's reasonable objective of a government that "looks like America." Voter see a caricature of Democrats.

The 2024 election will not be determined by issues of jobs and taxes and income equality. Republicans will see to that. It will be decided on wedge issues that Trump has made the centerpiece of his brand. Trans athletes. Woke renaming of California schools. De-criminalizing illegal immigration. Late-term abortions. Electric vehicle requirements. Ending private health insurance in favor of universal coverage. High gasoline taxes. 

Kamala Harris has a history, one that made sense in a universe of California politics and a run for president in 2019 as a progressive hoping to be Bernie-lite. She was a blue state senator trying to appeal to Democratic activists and donors. Republicans are painting her as a woke, San Francisco, extremist zealot.

Harris needs to do something dramatic to change the story. She needs to disappoint the most forward and aggressive people in the progressive advocacy groups. (Very possibly Herb Rothschild, too.) Their complaints will be a feature, not a bug. The complaints would give her credibility that she is in fact a centrist looking to reduce partisan drama. She could win as a calm-the-waters centrist.

The alternative is to please the economic and cultural progressives and stake her claim to being a change-agent because it represents a better, more just, environmentally sensitive America. She will be aided in that effort by the Trump campaign which will say that that is exactly what she is trying to do. She will lose the battleground states plus some others. Trump will win. The progressive progress of the past four years will be reversed. 

A Democrat who expects to be elected president needs to voice policies that are popular with the American people. High gasoline prices may well be good for the climate, but voters don't like them. Trans athletes breaking records in women's events is not popular. Late term abortions are not popular. Mass illegal immigration is not popular. 

In a democracy, it isn't just OK to do what is popular. It is necessary.


[Note: Here is the full text of Herb Rothschild's comment.]



[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your emai go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]



11 comments:

Mike Steely said...

You say, “In a democracy, it isn't just OK to do what is popular. It is necessary.” In my youth, segregation was popular, but neither necessary or OK.

I heard Bernie Sanders being interviewed recently and what he advocates may sound radical to some Americans, but every other developed nation has some form of universal health care and a far better grip on gun violence. Nor is there anything radical about protecting Medicare and Social Security, or addressing the grotesque wealth disparities in the U.S. There’s something seriously wrong when the three richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of the country.

Up Close: Road to the White House said...

Excellent comment, Mike. Now it is a question of salesmanship. Sanders and other progressives need to persuade Americans. The problem is not that politicians "don't get it." It is that voters don't. Not yet.

It took four years for the ACA to become popular. For better or worse, American public opinion moves slowly unless there is a charismatic salesperson in the form of a national leader. Trump, for all his narcissistic sociopathic behavior, is an aggressive marketer.

Sanders did not sell it to middle America. People with good insurance did not want to take a risk on something new

Peter Sage

Mike Steely said...

"People with good insurance did not want to take a risk on something new."

That wouldn't be necessary to provide some form of coverage to those who don't have any.

As for salesmanship and marketing, that's what sells cigarettes. Beware of what's popular. Invading Iraq was popular for some strange reason, but it was inherently stupid.

Michael Trigoboff said...

It is why voters suspect that Biden is perfectly happy to sacrifice objective merit in appointments to meet DEI objectives, when, in fact there is no shortage of highly qualified candidates available for him to appoint to meet Biden's reasonable objective of a government that "looks like America."

“Looks like America“ is clever political rhetoric for advocating a racial quota system.

Your field doesn’t have 13% black people in it? Racist!

But somehow, no one ever complains that the NBA doesn’t “look like America,“ because of its “underrepresentation“ of Asians, or its overrepresentation of blacks.

“Looks like America“ is a thumb on the scale for racial discrimination in favor of certain groups, and a de-emphasis of merit, competence, and excellence.

Perhaps competence and excellence are not so important in certain liberal arts fields, but they are crucially necessary for neurosurgery, airline pilots, and writing code, just to name a few.

Rick Millward said...

The problem isn't policy. It's that a part of the electorate is effectively isolated from rational discussions that may be in their best interests.

Their racist, misogynistic and bigoted attitudes are mental prisons and Trump and FOX are the warden and guards. The prison is its own dark world. There are no locks, though, the inmates are held in place by their prejudices.

Anyway, Democrats have course corrected, finally realizing that a forward looking, positive vision for America needed a better messenger, someone more representative of the the country we are becoming.

I don't think enough has been said about the fact that many Democrats believed Biden would only serve one term and that betrayal was clouding their judgement, especially younger Progressives. Assuming he would have announced after the 22 midterms I think it's fair to say that the VP would have been chosen in an open primary, given his endorsement and support from party leaders. So, in a way, the Universe has righted itself and we are on the right path now, and who's to say, given the events since then maybe it's for the best.

Anonymous said...

" ... why voters suspect ... "
shows that it has no factual basis.

Thanks to propaganda and uninformed Fox watching viewers, voters also suspected the stateside-serving bush had a better military record than Senator John Kerry.

Mike said...

The notion that DEI can only be achieved at the expense of merit, competence and excellence Implies that minorities are inherently less qualified than whites. Giving priority to an equally qualified minority is a beginning at addressing the racial disparities resulting from past prejudice. Naturally some whites resent having the privilege they’ve enjoyed for generations whittled away.

Low Dudgeon said...

As opposed to propaganda and "informed" CBS News viewers, via Dan Rather and those damning Bush military "records" typed in 1973, sorry, generated in 2004 Microsoft Word....

Michael Trigoboff said...

Racial quota systems are not popular even in blue California, where initiatives to set them up consistently fail at the ballot box. Racial preferences are toxic. It hurts minorities when they have to live under a cloud of suspicion that they were “DEI hires”.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Racial discrimination against a white person now because a black person was discriminated against in the past is still racial discrimination. And it’s still wrong.

Mike said...

For the record:
– Diversity is embracing the differences everyone brings to the table, whether it’s someone’s race, age, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability or other aspects of social identity.
– Equity is treating everyone fairly and providing equal opportunities.
– Inclusion is respecting everyone’s voice and creating a culture where people from all backgrounds feel encouraged to express their ideas and perspectives.

To Republicans, of course, DEI is a derogatory term used to discredit people of color, often followed by playing the “I’m not a racist” card.

Michael Trigoboff said...

But I am actually starting to like Kamala Harris. Check out her spot-on affectionate impression of her Brooklyn Jewish mother-in-law:

https://www.kveller.com/kamala-harris-impression-of-her-jewish-mother-in-law-is-worthy-of-an-oscar/