Kamala Harris, and Election 2020

It is such a shame that Kamala Harris has decided to abandon her run for President.  Most importantly, I believe that Senator Kamala Harris would be a good choice for President in a more typical election year.  There are few or no policy issues on which we disagree, she is a plausible candidate from the point of view of diversifying our nominees for elected leaders, and she is able to think on her feet, most ably when it comes to points she has prepared beforehand.

This time around, however, I believe that withdrawing at this point is the clever thing to do.  I explain below.

Reason No. 1.  This particular race for nomination has become confused between several groups of issues; principally two.  Firstly, there is the urgency of ensuring that the Democrats defeat the Republican nominee.  Of course, this is always an urgent problem; the Republican always seem to emphasize the well-being of wealthy individuals against the good of the nation, the majority of which is comprised of people who are poor.  However, this year we are alarmed at the particular team that the Republicans have allowed to steal their nomination, a more frustratingly destructive choice than ever before in history.  If you Republicans are congratulating yourselves on rattling the equanimity of liberals with the Trump presidency, be aware that a total revolution in norms is not what will work for you.  Now the Democrats want a counter-revolution in norms that is going to make you very sorry.

Secondly, there is the expectation from a number of different quarters, that it would be most convenient if each candidate would put forward a single major initiative that distinguishes him or her from the other candidates, so that everyone can call that candidate "The Environment Candidate," or the "Wall Street Reform Candidate," or the "Medicare For All Candidate."  By implication, a candidate who supports most, or all, of these initiatives, but who is not particularly focused on any one of them, is seen as wishy-washy.  This was perceived as Kamala Harris's weakness.  As far as I was concerned, it was really not a weakness at all, but rather an advantage; all these fronts need to be pushed forward, regardless of whether voters consider them important.  Once a president is elected, as I keep reminding my readers, he or she will appeal to her fellow-candidates for ideas or detailed plans to further all these plans.  But the media, the campaign staff, and the voters are all disappointed in the lack of a focus, and that results in low fund-raising results, and ultimately leads to the candidate dropping out.  It is a great pity.

Reason No. 2.  The Democrats--the more progressive party by far, whether or not it is the better party--has gradually embraced racial, ethnic and gender diversity.  Obama, the first non-white president of the US, was a great success (one reason why conservatives hate him with a passion), and being a moderate, and a flexible man, was able to get much progressive legislation passed.  (Another reason why conservatives hate him.  And he was articulate and eloquent, a third reason.  And he was educated, a fourth reason.  I shall temporarily now abandon this line of thinking.)  If the Democratic Party is to keep up this effort to reflect our diverse society with diversity in its presidential nominees, it would make sense to nominate a woman or a minority person.  Kamala Harris would have been perfect.

Instead, now, we're either going to get Bernie Sanders, who might be the first Jewish nominee (though I'm not sure whether there might not have been Jews in earlier times), or Buttigieg, the first openly gay nominee, or Elizabeth Warren, the second woman nominee.

I'm a little nervous about Elizabeth Warren; she seems a little oblivious to public sentiment, though her attitudes towards the Banks and Wall Street are perfect, in my opinion.  There is a danger in proceeding too far, too fast; it is the easiest thing for the Republican Party--if anything goes wrong with the reforms, and the Democrats lose the next election--to reverse all the changes (just as the Democrats can be expected to reverse the effects of the 2017 tax cut of Trump).

Bernie Sanders worries me because of his age; Joe Biden worries me because of his children, and because he seems to trip over his tongue, and sometimes lose his temper.  I'm fine with Buttigieg; he is clever enough to get the help he needs from among the talent in the party.  One feels sad for the arrogance of the present administration, which does not have the humility to admit to being unable to run the country.

So, Senator Harris: we expect you to take a break, and jump back in, in eight years, or four, as appropriate.

Arch