In general, most of the electable potential nominees in the Democratic Party are going to govern a similar manner. They're going to be broadly left-of-center with a nod to the progressive wing without alienating the moderate base. They all have some government experience and therefore know how things work, know the extent and limits of presidential power and they understand that working with Congress is not optional. If there are vacancies on the Supreme Court they would all appoint liberal-leaning justices and do the same for the other federal courts. They all understand the importance of strong international alliances and the need for mutual support of those allies. So why Harris?
Two reasons. During her short time in the Senate the tenacious way she held administration officials accountable was inspiring. Not in a "getting social media likes" manner, not in the rude way some members of Congress treat those who testify, but as one would expect from a former prosecutor, by cutting right to the heart of matters. Her rise through various levels of government show a familiarity with the system that would serve her well juggling the myriad responsibilities of the presidency. Secondly, as a practical matter, since she is the Vice President she is the logical choice to step up and run for the highest office in the land. Skipping over her in favor of one more White dude would have alienated some of the Democrats' core constituencies. That's not something that they could or should risk this late in the game.
I've heard a lot of criticism about the Democrats' "undemocratic" elevation of Harris. Although the criticism is mainly coming, not from other Democrats, but from Republicans and so-called neutral observers. Most of this criticism is based on a lack of understanding of how the nomination process works as well as an ignorant view of just how impossible an operationally feasible plan for opening up the nomination to "the people". One thing I keep a hearing is that the Democratic party should have run another primary to give people a choice. "A" primary? That's a fantasy: (1) There isn't a national primary (2) Each state party in cooperation with the state government, sets its own rules for primaries. - How long do you think it would take for candidates to come forward, ballots to be printed and the whole machinery of an election geared up? Hint: it's measured in months. I've asked people to tell me how this could have been accomplished and no one can come up with an answer other than "They should figure it out". Heck, you can tell me I should drive to New York and arrive by tomorrow morning, but no amount of "figuring it out" is going to make it possible.
The other issue is the lack of understanding from the "We're a republic, not a democracy" crowd. When you vote for a candidate for president in a primary or caucus you're actually voting for a slate of delegates who are pledged to vote for that candidate at the convention in the first round of voting. The delegates represent us. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, or a candidate drops out then the delegates are free to vote for whoever they think best represent the party and can win. Which is the situation we are in. Besides, all of the plausible Democratic candidates had resigned themselves to standing aside for Biden, and wisely chose to do the same for Harris in the cause of party unity. And do we really think that Harris is going to drive away anyone who had planned to vote for Biden? At the very least she'll bring in some voters who would have sat out due to being uncomfortable with Biden's age and its attendant weaknesses.
I don't care about her laugh. I don't care about accusations that she slept her way into politics. I certainly don't care whether she is Black or Indian or what my fellow White people think about her heritage. What I care about is that she is our best chance to keep Losin' Don out of the White House and that she is well suited to lead our nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment