“The debate over why Harris lost the election is in full swing,” reads a Vox banner. “Was she a weak candidate? Was it Joe Biden‘s fault? Did Trump have unexpected strength? Or was it a global trend?”
“The Harris campaign was always running uphill,” remarked William A. Galston, author and political advisor. “She served as vice president to a president whose approval rating plunged in the middle of his first year in office and never recovered.”
Galston added, “Harris’s theory of the case was flawed.” She placed reproductive rights at the core of her platform, banking on it to mobilize an army of passionate women voters who would turn out in unprecedented numbers. This wave never materialized.
“Harris’s tactical choices made her problems worse,” Galston concluded. As one example, he cited her reluctance to differentiate herself from Biden in a way that would attract persuadable voters.
Success, as the saying goes, has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. Had Harris triumphed, the chorus of critics would have transformed into admirers, each eager to credit her resilience, strategy, and vision. Suddenly, the traits scrutinized in her defeat would be celebrated as strokes of political genius.
Imagine had Harris won.
I can’t help but visualize the headlines and analyses that would have dominated the front pages.
Harris Shatters Expectations in Historic Election Victory
Kamala Harris, the first woman and person of Black and South Asian descent to win the U.S. presidency, has defied the odds and rewritten the playbook for American politics. Her victory represents a transformative shift, challenging long-held beliefs about electability, voter priorities, and the future of the Democratic Party.
A Political Style that Struck a Chord
Harris’ team shaped a political style that resonated with a diverse coalition of Americans seeking a fresh approach. Her campaign emphasized unifying issues beyond traditional partisan divides: economic stability, community safety, and environmental resilience. With a blend of empathy and resolve, Harris engaged voters by proposing pragmatic solutions infused with a vision for meaningful reform. Her rhetoric focused less on catchy soundbites and more on a holistic message that bridges divides.
The Strength of Caution
Harris’ thoughtful, steady approach appealed to an electorate fatigued by extremes. Her careful, deliberate messaging allowed her to sidestep pitfalls, keeping the conversation focused on policy. By avoiding unnecessary controversies and maintaining a disciplined approach, Harris won the support of moderate Republicans, independents, and new voters looking for a stable leader.
Owning Her Record – and Her Identity
Rather than distancing herself from her past, Harris embraced it, using her experience as a prosecutor to demonstrate her ability to make tough decisions. Her moderate stance on key issues enabled her to connect with a broad spectrum of the electorate without alienating progressives. Harris portrayed her experience as an asset for navigating complex political landscapes.
The Center Holds: A Winning Strategy
Harris’s choice to embrace a centrist approach proved pivotal. Her loyalty to Biden reassured voters who valued continuity. This balanced navigation between progressive ideas and centrist policies unified the Democratic base, allowing her to gain the support of independents without fracturing her coalition.
Turning Adversity into Strengths
Harris encountered resistance rooted in gender and race, yet she transformed these obstacles into sources of strength. Negative portrayals -- depicting her as unserious or frivolous – only served to galvanize her supporters. Voters saw through these attacks, rallying around her as a symbol of resilience and progress. Harris’s poise in the face of such criticism highlighted her commitment to representing all Americans.
In her victory, Kamala Harris has not only broken barriers but also demonstrated that the United States is ready for a different kind of leadership – one characterized by grace under pressure, a steady hand, and an inclusive vision for the future. Her success suggests that American voters are moving beyond outdated biases, embracing leaders who embody the diversity and resilience of the nation itself.
Sadly, Harris did not win. So why did she lose?
Amid the flood of theories attempting to explain her defeat, one perspective from Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa stands out, offering a rarely considered angle in the discourse of political pundits.
“As people went to vote this year [in the U.S. election, they were exposed to fewer] facts, more division, more fear, anger, and hate,” Ressa observed. In the Philippines, the target then was the drug addicts; in Trump’s campaign, it was the immigrants.
“In a weird way, the Philippines went to hell earlier than the rest of the world. And from hell, we’re now in purgatory, while the West is just [entering its version of] hell, so we’re a little bit ahead of the curve,” Ressa added, reflecting on the Philippines’ 2016 presidential election that brought Rodrigo Roa Duterte to power. Often called the Trump of Asia, Duterte exploited the basic human needs – survival and safety -- two foundational tiers in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs -- of a massive segment of poor Filipinos.
Ressa once interviewed Cambridge Analytica (CA) whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who revealed that the Philippines was an ideal testing ground for CA’s tactics. Wylie explained:
“A lot of times when CA was looking to experiment with techniques, experiment with AI -- whether it was manipulating voter opinion or disseminating propaganda -- it created an ideal Petri dish situation in the Philippines… If it does work, then you can figure out how [it could then be adapted for use] in other countries [like the U.S.]."
Did CA play a role in Duterte’s victory? Six months before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, CA appeared to have a hand in the Philippine presidential race. The South China Morning Post reported that CA’s involvement likely contributed to Duterte’s win.
Upon receiving the 2019 Shorenstein Journalism Award at Stanford University, Ressa warned: “If you can make people believe lies are the facts, then you can control them.” All the more with Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter). She stressed the four-step formula used by modern authoritarians.
1) Lie all the time,
2) Accuse opponents and journalists of lying,
3) Sow confusion about what’s true, and
4) Make resistance seem futile.
Ressa asserts that without facts, there can be no civic engagement. A lie told a million times replaces the truth.
Two defense experts and authors of the book Like War: The Weaponization of Social Media expand on Ressa’s insights, noting:
“It’s not just a battle over your point of view but a battle over reality itself… This technology came out of nowhere. Twenty years ago, none of these platforms existed. It has transformed the way we conduct our politics.”
Doesn’t this scenario mirror what unfolded in the recent 2024 U.S. election?
Content and editing put together in collaboration with ChatGPT
Head photo courtesy of Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Still photos courtesy of Library of Congress, Getty Images, Fulbright, & istockphotos
No comments:
Post a Comment