This election result isn't about Dem messaging.
— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) November 18, 2024
Their messaging during the campaign was pitch-perfect in any other iteration of America. It was about helping the middle class, lowering taxes for the average American, continuing with sound economic policies to cut rising grocery… pic.twitter.com/djEWDJGMEW
With Kamala Harris having run an exciting and efficient campaign, Pavlovitz is correct that "there is no messaging that can overcome prejudice and ignorance." Prejudice and ignorance are endemic to the human condition, and the number of black males and, especially, Latino males who voted for Donald Trump is stunning.
Nonetheless, there are many factors which led to the horrific result in the presidential race and racism and misogny are not the two most significant. (Lack of education is a different sort of thing and a whole other issue.)
Of course, there is not "some perfect Democratic candidate." Regrettably, though, Kamala Harris was nearly as far from a perfect candidate as is possible.
Perhaps the Democratic Party (or presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden) should not have selected a candidate who had responded to a 2019 questionnaire from the ACLU in such a problematic way.
Harris was asked whether she would "champion legislation to provide fair and achieval paths to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants." She stated "As president, I will prioritize immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million plus people living in our communities." The American people would have preferred "I will prioritize securing the border," even if it had been followed by a "however.'
Asked if she would "commit to ending the use of ICE detainers," she replied that she would do so and bragged that "as Attorney General, I issued a bulletin on December 4, 2012 informing all California law enforcement that they did not have to comply with ICE detainers." That is quite a boast for an ex-prosecutor, thus an ex-law enforcement officer.
And then, of course, there was the big one- as pertained to the presidential election. As a matter of policy, it is virtually irrelevant because these situations occur very rarely. However, Harris' perspective was skillfully exploited by the GOP this fall. The ACLU queried
As President will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?
The then-candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination checked the "yes" box and explained
It is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition. That’s why, as Attorney General, I pushed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates. I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained. Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.
Unlike some of the other answers which at least represented good policy, this is a bad idea. And Senator Harris should have realized that at some point in a general election campaign this would come back to haunt her. And haunt her it did, when she was caught on video reassuring the LGBTQIA community of her commitment:
Yet, given her oppponent, the Vice President still had an excellent chance of claiming the presidency. And she appeared in the best possible venue, one which included only as interviewees only supporters of hers and audience members poised to applaud enthusiastically a candidate on the precipice of becoming the first female President of the USA. An entire cheering section, in miniature a replica of the huge rallies she handled expertly. And then, this:
It's awkward when a Vice President is confronted about whether she or he would do anything different than has the incumbent President. For Ms. Harris, it should hae been, as characterized by questioner Sonny Hostin, a "layup."
Moreover, it's a question she had to know she would be asked, if not on The View than elsewhere. And it turns out that she was:
This failure to prepare wasn't about racism, misogyny, lack of education, or even the campaign. It was about the candidate. The candidate wasn't the only reason for defeat of the Democratic nominee. However, it was a major reason, and failure to recognize and acknowledge that is an exercise in self-delusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment