Any of us who pay the slightest attention to politics (the governor of Nebraska is excluded from this demographic) knows that despite a president's best (or worst) intentions, there are two other co-equal branches of government. The last time a president had a Congress that (mostly) supported his agenda was 2008, when President Obama had a large Democratic majority in the House and 60 Democrats in the Senate - a filibuster-proof majority. After this election either party could control either house of Congress, with a likely single digit majority in the House and a one seat majority at most in the Senate. Hardly the scenario for tyranny of the majority.
For the most part we know the broad strokes of how each candidate would govern, whether you like either's policies or personality or not. And since we are a de facto two party system, both of the major parties need to be "big tent" organizations, welcoming a range of views. We know what Trump was like since he was the president for four years, and we know how Harris most likely would govern - she was in the Senate, has a long career of public service, has been in the public eye as Vice President and has not been reticent about her goals as president. We also know that a lot of what any candidate says during a campaign is to get people excited, encourage the base to show up on Election Day and yes, maybe draw in those eleven people who are yet undecided.
What is the right way for a candidate to get their message across? Well certainly not by succumbing to the "standards" that their opponents have set. Donald Trump was certainly successful in 2016 by setting his own rules. He ignored all norms and "the way it's done" by insulting his way through the early debates, the primaries and the general election campaign. He refused to release his tax returns as had been customary for 40 years. His campaign rallies were more religious tent meetings than political gatherings. He was unapologetically hateful. He famously was asked after the election whether he regretted his divisive rhetoric, "No, I won didn't I?" was his response. But now, VP Harris is being criticized for not having a platform on her website and for not yet doing a sit down interview. Why does she need to do either of those things? I refer you back to the first paragraph.
There's is no one who doesn't know, at least in general terms, what Harris stands for. She has been in politics for a long time, she makes speeches, she has done interviews, she's done a few rallies. The Democratic convention is next week - we'll see a platform and we'll hear her speak again. She's a Democrat! The calls for her to do things differently than how she's doing them come from her opponents, not from her supporters, the same people who were apoplectic about the supposedly undemocratic method of her nomination as the Democratic candidate for president - that Democrats understood was the best way to move forward and defeat Trump.
Listen to what she's saying...she's speaking!
No comments:
Post a Comment