In simple, and simplistic, terms, Kamala Harris is an ideal candidate for president. In this age of diversity and realpolitik combined, she is a black woman from a large state. And a former prosecutor. California's attorney general, no less. Then a United States senator. She has a great education. And not just in school. Her political experience, along with everything else, makes her a walking résumé. Her ability to fight is respected, her story applauded. No wonder she started out as one of the front-runners.
Then she campaigned.
We're not sure where Kamala Harris' campaign went into the ditch, but it most certainly was not during the debates. She debated as well as anybody not a mayor from Indiana. When she took on Joe Biden and his 1970s support for 1970s issues, she put to rest that she was running to be his veep. Kamala Harris was running for president, not to be Joe Biden's diversity chairman.
But early on, Kamala Harris decided her campaign would fight for the crowded lanes on the left--and leave moderate positions to others. That decision might have starved her campaign of the nutrition, or at least the carbs, that keep campaigns going: cash on hand. How out-flank Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on liberal issues?
Sen. Harris' positions took her from left to left-er, from supporting Medicare for All to being "open" to packing the United States Supreme Court. And it says a lot about the current state of the national Democratic Party that its candidates for president are criticized for time spent as prosecutors--combating crime at the local and state level. And what it says is nothing good.
But don't blame the base. Or the messenger(s). At one point, this candidate raised some eyebrows when she said, publicly and on camera, "Let's eliminate all that," when asked about private health insurance. Late note to her advisers: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have the socialist vote covered.
Kamala Harris did learn at least one thing from Elizabeth Warren: how to be "open" to ideas, no matter how unreal. The best progressive candidates, when confronted with a question they haven't poll tested yet, say they're open to such ideas. Which is how Kamala Harris became open to the possibility of setting term limits for top justices and limiting the number of judges a president can nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sen. Harris was also a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a never-never calamity that would cost trillions of dollars. How many trillions is in dispute. Mainly because nobody--mark it, nobody--has a real handle on its costs. Or how handcuffing the American economy will clean up the air as long as China and India are belching smog. As somebody said, there are no border walls in the atmosphere.
Run down the list: The Kamala Harris campaign had something called the Equal Pay Certification plan, which--as it bragged--was the "most aggressive equal pay proposal in history." It would have required companies to be certified, through various government means, that they don't give preferential treatment to men over women. Just what the economy needs: another public agency requiring more certifications and inspections. And for an Extra Added Bonus, the plan would have put the burden of proof on private business. Not the other way around.
Sen. Harris co-sponsored one of the College For All Acts, which would eliminate tuition and fees at public colleges. She suggested ICE should be scrapped. And she called for the federal legalization of weed.
Kamala Harris checked other progressive boxes as well: She was "open to the idea" of getting rid of the Electoral College, requiring paid leave for new parents in the private sector, and giving government subsidies to more house renters. As best we can tell, there wasn't a big-government idea that she couldn't make her own. Or try. Uncle Bernie still makes a habit of saying he wrote the damn bill when talking about Medicare for All. But she tried to wrest that away from him, too.
The Kamala Harris campaign was a blur, and we're trying to understand the significance of it, if there was a significance. Part of us thinks that Elizabeth Warren's numbers will start creeping up again, after a week or so of sagging low enough that stories were appearing in the press. But with Kamala Harris' 4 percent, Elizabeth Warren might inch her way back into second place.
A more hopeful reading of the tea leaves--if not chicken guts--might be this: Even folks in the Democratic Party want more moderates. But that might be more than hopeful. It might be downright fanciful.
Where's the deep analysis, or the eulogy, for this campaign? Thank goodness the commentariat is around to explain things.
On Tuesday, NBC News put out an opinion piece--clearly labeled opinion, too--that bewailed Kamala Harris' decision, and, not coincidentally, Kirsten Gillibrand's dropping out of the race over the summer. And what's the upshot of these decidedly former campaigns? The writer tells us: "From abortion rights and reproductive justice to trans rights, maternal mortality, affordable child care, paid family leave, public education reform and systemic racial injustice, the issues that impact Americans on a daily basis--and which billionaires simply have not experienced--naturally fall to the back of the line. It's 'how do we reach the moderates?' and not 'how do we protect the marginalized?' that becomes the prevailing political question."
Oh, puh-leeze. May we introduce you to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson . . . .
As far as the online creeps who tried to harm the Harris campaign with the "Kamala is a cop" meme, well, to some of us that was her most endearing feature. As far as Tulsi Gabbard's latest debate performance, and performance it was, what goes around comes around. For example, see Kamala Harris at the first debate.
This campaign will be dissected a thousand times in the coming days. Better to get at those chicken guts for the prophecies. But the best answer to why the Kamala Harris campaign failed might not be debate performances, media bias, wealthy competition, Tulsi Gabbard or too many progressives pushing Medicare for All. The best answer might well be the candidate.
Editorial on 12/05/2019