Months ago, when Candidate Biden picked Kamala Harris as his VP, I felt that it was a mistake.
Mind you, I did not think she would hurt his chances come November 3rd. Indeed, for electoral reasons picking Harris made a lot of sense. Given the summer of 2020, choosing a mixed-race daughter of immigrants as a VP was an important symbolic statement. Especially since Biden’s entire campaign centered around the fight for ‘the soul of America,’ it would have been problematic to ignore racial representation as a front in that fight. Harris is also young, dynamic, and unapologetic, so from the beginning she has balanced out some of Biden’s weaknesses. Lastly, after November (and all the cabinet selections we have witnessed) it has become clear that Biden values loyalty in his team. And it is entirely understandable that he would want a VP who, above all else, could serve as a loyal team player. Harris certainly fits that mold.
Nonetheless, I still worry about the long-term implications of the 2020 Democratic VP pick.
I worry because the president’s VP is almost always the party’s heir apparent. Bush Sr. followed Reagan; Gore followed Clinton; Biden likely would’ve followed Obama sooner were it not for personal tragedies. The VP gives a strong indication of where the president’s party is going to go when the president is no longer in office. Sometimes the VP represents continuity and consolidation, sometimes they represent a new, more youthful approach. In any case, Harris is almost certainly going to try and pick up the baton after Biden, and I don’t think she will succeed.
Ultimately, though, the problem with the Harris vice-presidency is not just that she might lose a given election. The problem is that she represents a losing national strategy at a time when the GOP is in crisis and ten of millions of voters are potentially up for grabs. If Democrats play their political cards right in post-Trump America, they might come to dominate government to an extent not seen since FDR’s 1930s triumphs. But in this brave new world of fake news and demagogy, Harris is a troubling political weathervane. I can’t shake the feeling that the other leading VP candidate, Elizabeth Warren, presented a better opportunity to claim a new generation of liberal hegemony.
Let me explain.
Two distinct yet interrelated goals have always defined liberalism in America. The first: greater economic equity. The second: social justice for minority groups. The quest for the first has always won support from the vast majority of Americans. Unsurprisingly, the most successful Democratic presidents of the last century – FDR, LBJ, and Clinton – built their appeal on an economic platform that first prioritized material gains for the average citizen. Unfortunately, however, the battle for greater inclusion of minorities has never been the primary concern of the majority. That doesn’t mean social justice lacks transformational power; the George Floyd protests alone make clear that police brutality and systemic racism cannot be dismissed – and polls increasingly show how much the average Democrat supports change on these issues. But the plain truth is that most Americans care more about material equity than social justice.
Democrats have dominated when they loudly insist on economic reform while quietly tackling America’s social cancers. When they have instead championed identity politics, they have allowed Republicans to bankrupt the middle and working classes. This process has been neither monolithic nor linear, but it has been the trend since the early days of Reaganomics.
More than any other VP contender, Warren embodied that winning mantra: ‘it’s the economy, stupid.’ As VP, she could have built bridges to voters of all stripes while strengthening ties with the party’s base through her resume of liberal achievement. With an office in the White House Warren – whether heir apparent or Democrat emeritus – could have laid the groundwork for the party of the future. And while she is probably more of a maverick than Harris, I don’t think she would have caused trouble for Biden or refused to tow the administration line. Her past cooperation with the Obama administration proves her credentials as a pragmatic reformer.
Watching the Democratic convention Harris’ candidacy was presented as an act of justice long overdue. But besides her chameleon centrism and commitment to prosecuting the Trump regime, it is unclear what long-term political vision she serves. And while this is easy to ignore when Biden is the main show, I worry about what this will mean for the part going forward. With Harris as a front-runner, the electoral appeal of Democrats might be significantly limited. And, to stress the point, I don’t think Democrats have ever had such a golden opportunity to present themselves as the party of all America, to counter lies and small-mindedness with human concern and smart policy.
Attributing the future of the Democratic party to the VP might seem a stretch. The crusade against Trump, however, has only papered over the progressive-centrist schism within the Democratic party, not bridged it. Once the crucible of Trump’s America collapses and shared disdain fades, the significance of choosing Harris over Warren – and their respective politics – will become the chief conflict for Democrats. Soon, they will be fighting for the soul of their party.
A focus on economic opportunity and a no-nonsense clarity about the responsibilities of government have always characterized the best of liberal politics. The White House belongs to Biden for this very reason. Democrats and responsible Americans should rejoice. But the GOP is re-posturing, and I suspect a Democratic decade will remain elusive.
cover image credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/32796787317