Get on Board the Harris Train
A request of some of my fellow white men of a liberal or centrist leaning.
Last Sunday as I was sitting down taking a brief break between weekend tasks, I saw President Biden’s announcement via the site formally known as Twitter that he was withdrawing as a candidate for the 2024 presidency.
I felt relief.
Thirty-ish minutes later I saw his announcement that he was endorsing his VP Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee for the presidency.
I felt the beginnings of excitement, of hope.
So did many others.
Within 36 hours, her campaign had raised over $100 million in donations ($81 million in the first 24 hours). Within 48 hours almost 40,000 people registered to vote (mostly those within the 18-34 age bracket). Zoom calls led by black women, South Asian women, black men, and white women have strained the technology’s capabilities with the number of participants. One led by white men is anticipated. Within 36 hours she had secured enough delegate endorsements to win the party’s nomination, and by the end of the week had received endorsements from a majority of major Democrats, topping it off with Barack and Michelle Obama’s phone call on Friday.
But there’s a sentiment I’ve heard or read from some white liberal and centrist men, particularly those closer to my age (let’s say middle-ish age), that’s bugging me. It’s expressed along the lines of: This was a coronation. She didn’t go through any formal primary process that tests her against other potential nominees. And most of us (i.e., I) didn’t get to have any say in who the nominee will be.
For the moment, let’s set aside the associated sense of privilege (tied to the white, cis male identity) that at least partially underlies this sentiment (as my not so subtle above use of the pronoun I referenced).
An argument can be made that the process unfolding before our eyes isn’t a coronation. The Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of coronation most relevant to this situation is an occasion when someone is chosen for an important job without having to win an election or other competition. There was a primary process (the competition) that ended with the vast majority of the delegates from each state committed to the Biden/Harris ticket as the President/VP nominees (though the delegates had yet to cast their final votes). Harris was on the ticket - the delegates would have essentially casted ballots for her as well as Biden.
And no one else has stepped up to challenge Harris since Sunday (nor was there a serious challenger to the Biden/Harris ticket during the initial primary). She’s all but won the competition by default, not coronation. Most of these same delegates at this point have shifted their pledged votes to Harris. And many of the heavy hitters (like former speaker Pelosi and Barack and Michelle Obama) waited until that happened to make their endorsements. We may not have had a full blown competitive primary, but nor is this unfolding as a simple coronation.
However, I would argue you can justifiably be angry with President Biden. If he had followed through on what he said he would do and act as a bridge to the next generation, then the primary process would have looked different. But this is where we are. And Kamala Harris is our best shot at defeating Trump and his MAGA / MINO Republicans. Wait, she’s not just our best shot given the circumstances, she’s a damn good shot in any circumstance at this point.
Many of the disgruntled and nervous haven’t been paying attention to how she’s developed as the VP over the last few years, still focusing on the hiccups from her first year and her short bid for the 2020 presidency. She’s also been on fire on the campaign trail over the last several months, even those three weeks between Biden’s disastrous debate performance and his final withdrawal as a candidate. Not to mention the narrative of the prosecutor vs felon - that’s gold in and of itself. And there’s no other Democrat with the same level of experience adjacent to the presidency. Here are a two sources covering some of this.
At the very least, make the comparison to Trump as Biden asked us to do with him - don’t compare her to the almighty, compare her to the alternative. An extremely competent, smart politician who believes in Democracy and doing what she can to improve the lives of all Americans vs a narcissistic, white supremacist, authoritarian wanna-be with felony convictions, bent on ending our nation’s democratic experiment, crippling the federal government, ripping away the rights of many Americans, and exacerbating the wealth gap with more tax breaks for his billionaire buddies.
Questions and concerns revolving around strategy are understandable - the stakes are pretty high (and there’s so many of them - we certainly can’t go back relative to climate action: Nature Communications just published a study where researchers now “… estimate a collapse of the AMOC [Atlantic meridional overturning circulation] to occur around mid-century under the current scenario of future emissions” with absolutely devastating consequences). Questions like, had there been time, would a mini-primary of sorts provided a stronger argument relative to questions of legitimacy? Or how does the U.S.’s ongoing racism and misogyny impact her ability to get elected?
But it’s a fine line between asking questions of strategy and feeding into narratives that undermine VP Harris as a presidential candidate. Articles devoted to her laugh, even those defending it, can shift the emphasis from her qualifications (and Trump’s lack thereof) to sexist tropes and culture war issues. And there are far more despicable narratives and tropes out there - you can easily find them on the internet if you so desire.
Perhaps more insidious are the narratives that wrap themselves in strategy while subtly feeding into these undermining narratives. A recent article in The Economist, entitled Kamala Harris lacks charisma and time is one example that I think crosses the line. The idea of charisma itself, not easily defined and often linked to gender roles, has been used to undermine women as leaders. VP Harris is the focus here, but it was also used against Secretary Clinton during her presidential campaign.
And like it or not fellow white men, it’s a lot easier for us to cross this fine line compared to women and other minorities, given the current context and history of racism and misogyny in this country. Here’s where we should be doing a lot more listening to women and minorities relative to these strategy discussions (the irony of writing this as a white man is not lost on me). And then supporting. Getting on board the Harris train and supporting Democrats up and down the ballot. Because this Trump / MAGA / MINO authoritarianism extends up and down the ballot as well.
And damn, this is also fricking historic. It’s something for all of us to be excited about. The first woman president. The first black woman president. The first South Asian woman president. Imagine what it will mean to the women in your life - your partners, sisters, mothers, daughters, nieces. Imagine what it will mean to your friends and family in various minority communities. Then stop imagining and ask them. And yes, then listen.
So, my fellow white cis liberal/centrist men (and what the heck, come along you white conservative men who can’t stomach Trump), stop moping and whining about not being directly consulted. Check your privilege, put on your big boy woke pants, and get on board the Harris train.
Next stop, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
There has never been a perfect president or candidate. Harris has a lot to recommend her, even if you disagree with some of her policy priorities. She respects the rule of law. Charisma? Plentiful. Thank you for this post.
Excellent call to action.