The presidential election on November 5 is possibly the most fateful in the history of the United States. This is because—as I wrote in this publication on March 31, 2024—Donald Trump is a fascist. He is a racist, he is antidemocratic, authoritarian, and an instrumental liar, all of which together define him as a fascist. His election is unthinkable! At the very worst, it could destroy our democracy; at the very least, it could plunge us deeper into the national heart of darkness he has done so much to create.
On Sunday afternoon, July 21, President Biden announced that he would not run for a second term of office. The announcement was greeted with an enormous sigh of relief by millions of Americans who believed, with good reason, that he had little chance of winning the election. Shortly after his announcement, Biden endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, for president and only minutes later she declared she would be a candidate. Before the words were barely out of her mouth, high-profile Democrats, interest groups, and organizations began to endorse her, and by evening the support had turned into an avalanche. When noon struck the next day, Harris had enough pledged delegates to the Democratic convention to clinch the nomination. In less than 24 hours, she went from a potential nominee to the person who would—fingers crossed—save us from Trump.
It is easy to understand why Harris received so much support so quickly. First, because in some ways she is a very compelling candidate—smart, articulate, experienced, tough, energetic, and more. Second, because huge numbers of Democrats and anti-Trumpers were so eager to have a candidate other than Biden. And third, because with the election only four months away, Democrats felt a great sense of urgency.
But amidst the jubilation and frenzy of support for Harris, the most important question was ignored: Does she stand the best chance of beating Trump among all possible nominees?
For Harris, and for all those who rallied around her in lightning-quick fashion, this question was superfluous because there was no doubt in their minds that she was the strongest candidate; instinctively, they were certain of it. But this meant they had to block out or minimize her potential problems with voters. To be sure, she has her strengths, but just as palpably she has weaknesses that could lead to defeat. What follows is a list of some of her most troubling problems.
- Like it or not, Harris is tethered to Biden’s policies and three of them are very unpopular with large numbers of Americans: the economy (the high cost of almost everything, including food and housing); the border and immigration; and U.S. military support for Israel’s slaughter of some 39,000 Palestinians in Gaza.
- As a resident of California, she doesn’t help in the three states that could decide the Electoral College: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
- In the country as a whole, she isn’t popular. She hasn’t had a positive approval rating since September 2021.
- Her previous campaigns have not been well run. Her 2020 presidential campaign was a disaster.
- Her record for managing her staff is terrible.
- She has flip-flopped on important issues (for example, in 2020 she opposed fracking and supported Medicare for All, but holds the opposite positions today), which could detract from her credibility.
- There is a perception, even among some Democrats, that she is a lightweight.
- Finally, she is a Black woman. It pains me to bring this up because her race and gender should have nothing to do with her candidacy. But in a country as racist and misogynistic as ours is, and with a fascist representing the Republicans, the question of whether Americans are ready to elect a person who is both Black and a woman can’t be pushed under the rug. I don’t have a problem with it and I would bet that most Edge readers don’t either. But what about white working class men in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, where their votes could be decisive in determining the election? Asking them to vote for Harris might be too much. You could say their racism and/or misogyny is their problem, but if it leads to a Trump victory, then it becomes our
It is possible that Harris stands the best chance of defeating Trump, and now that she is the presumptive Democratic nominee, I hope it is true. (I have every intention of voting for her.) But rather than assume this to be so, Harris and the Democrats should have followed a different course of action than the one that unfolded when she steamrolled her way to the nomination with the knee-jerk support of so many of her acolytes.
What should have happened immediately following Biden’s announcement was for the leadership of the Democratic Party to convene a two-day united front conference with their best strategists and sharpest pollsters and all the potential leading nominees in attendance. This gathering of the Democrats’ best minds would have been for one purpose and one purpose only: to decide, as objectively as possible, who stood the best chance of winning this all-important election. Before the conference even began, participants would have been asked to park their egos and personal ambitions and agendas at the door and to work together for the sake of defeating Trump. At the end of the two days, we hope, a consensus candidate, based on hard reasoning rather than on identity and sectarian politics, would have emerged. The Party would then have announced the name to the public with an explanation of how carefully it had deliberated, and with an appeal for full-throated support for their candidate. At the same time, it would have stated that any Democrat who felt compelled to run against the selection was free to do so.
Might such a meeting have been successful? Would the participants have been able to work together enough to reach consensus on a unity candidate? Maybe not, but at least the Party would have had the satisfaction of knowing that it had carried out its duty, which was to engage in a very thoughtful process instead of the impulsive Kamala-fest that took place.
We teach our children to think before they act. Democrats didn’t do this on July 21 and 22. They acted before they thought deeply and critically.
We can only hope now that their impulsiveness, which could have been avoided, doesn’t lead to a Trump victory and the four nightmarish years which would surely follow.
