There has been a tendency among Democrats to get exasperated at the American people for not voting their material interests — for policies that would help them better their conditions. They wonder (as the title of a book raising the concern goes) “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” but what they really mean is, “What’s the Matter with America?”
In recent years, however, a growing body of scholarship has shown that people don’t tend to vote rationally, but rather use voting to express themselves in emotional, ideological and moral ways. This view of human behavior, which I would associate with scholars such as Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Haidt, sees elections as involving a great deal of intangible intuition and passion. Voters choose from the gut and then rationalize their choice, consciously or not. Kamala Harris’s campaign seems premised on this latter, intuition-based approach.
Ever since the vice president became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Harris has run a remarkably focused and disciplined campaign, one that seems deliberately light on substance and high on feelings. You don’t see the dozens of policy papers that were a hallmark of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Harris has not yet given extensive interviews or done news conferences which would force her to detail her positions on specific issues. Instead, she has introduced herself to the American people in entirely human terms, presenting herself as a dynamic, warm, funny and optimistic person. It’s heavy on vibes, and, so far, it seems to be working.
Her running mate pick follows the same pattern. The practical choice would have been Josh Shapiro, the smart, effective and popular governor of the swing state with the most electoral votes. Instead, she chose the governor of a bluer state — but one who projects an image that has resonated throughout the country: a folksy, affable, kindhearted man. The Tim Walz pick reminds us that, sometimes, EQ is as important as IQ.
This is a turning of the tables. Donald Trump and the Republicans have tended to be masters of the politics of emotion, emphasizing strength and evoking fear. But for now, Harris’s hopefulness — the sense of “joy” that Walz speaks of on the campaign trail — appears to be dominating.
There is also a turning of the tables in another sense. In every presidential election over the past three decades until 2020, the Democrats, now the party of the college-educated class, nominated someone who had a degree from Harvard or Yale at the top of the ticket. But now, Harris and Walz are continuing the turn away from the Ivy League begun by Biden and Harris — and it is the Republicans who have an all-Ivy ticket (with one billionaire and one venture capitalist). Watch Tim Walz’s video during his first campaign for governor giving voters tips on how to fix a burned-out headlight harness with an $8 part. It’s hard to imagine Barack Obama doing that.
So far, the Harris approach has allowed her to right the sinking Democratic ship. Solidly blue states that had turned into potential toss-ups are now back in the blue column. She is leading Trump in some national polls and is effectively tiedin the swing states.
But this momentum probably has a ceiling. America is evenly divided. Since 2000, presidential elections have been close-run affairs (with the exception of Obama’s victories). It seems likely that this one will also be decided by a few hundred thousand votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada.
To prevail, Harris will have to start filling in the substance of her campaign. The Democrats’ biggest strength is the issue of abortion, and the vice president has been eloquent and effective on it. Their biggest weakness is immigration, which galvanizes Republicans and even some independents. Harris has been speakingmuch more about it than Biden did — and she has also been given a gift by Trump.
When he forced Republicans this year to abandon the bipartisan immigration bill — which was basically a Republican wish list — he gave the Democrats an escape hatch on the issue. Rather than having to defend their decidedly weak and hapless stand on the collapse of the asylum process, they could now simply point out that they supported a bipartisan, tough crackdown at the border — and Trump did not. Harris has already said she will try to pass this bill if she wins, and she should go further by pledging to junk the entire asylum system and build a new one. We live in a different world from when that system was created, and our laws must reflect the reality that there are now millions of asylum seekers across the world.
Will the Harris strategy work? It’s early still, and it will be a tough, close contest. She has real vulnerabilities. But, so far, she has chosen a somewhat unusual path that could pay off in November.—
No comments:
Post a Comment