Skip to main content

Bravery Is a Choice, and Cowards Make Bad Leaders


In early September, Megyn Kelly interviewed four Minnesota veterans of the Iraq War. One of the veterans, Paul Herr, offered a memorable quote. "Fear is a reaction, bravery is a choice." Although he was talking about vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz and his decision to retire from the National Guard before fulfilling his commitment, it could easily apply to Kamala Harris and her campaign strategy. For anyone not paying attention due to the recent end of a coma, her strategy has been to avoid unscripted engagement with the press. In the time since becoming the nominee she has done only one interview. It was an hour or more edited to 16 minutes, she was accompanied by Tim Walz, and it featured very little follow up questioning. A growing chorus of political commentators are suggesting that she needs to talk more to the press to let the American people know who she is. The changing polling suggests that there is a growing awareness of her character and who she is from her continued avoidance of the press. It is impossible to make a strong case for a candidate to be president who is afraid to talk to the media.

Instead of articulating why she should be president, Harris is relying on the media to do public relations for her campaign. This unprecedented strategy matches a completely unprecedented nomination process. Avoiding the press means avoiding the vast number of questions about her candidacy and that process. She is the Democrats' presidential nominee after never receiving a single primary vote in either presidential election in which she has run. She became the nominee though backroom deals after Biden was forced off the ticket due to his cognitive decline. Mere weeks before the debate that exposed his cognitive state, the press had been telling us that Biden was at his best. It was an obvious lie shared by Harris. There are numerous questions around her public participation in that lie, including why she has not evoked the 25th Amendment to remove the cognitively diminished president. 

Prior to portraying Harris as the bloom of joyful hope, the press often reminded us that she was an historically unpopular vice president. While portraying Biden as strong, several sources suggested that her presence on the ballot would undermine his incumbency. Since Biden was forced off the ticket and she became the nominee she has consistently polled ahead of Biden, either near even with Trump or slightly ahead. This is due less to anything that she has done, she promotes many of Biden's unpopular policies. Her rise is mostly due to the media. It has so far allowed her to contradict positions she professed four years ago while spinning her as an agent of change rather than the incumbent in the race. The irony is that her strategy will prove the downfall of the strategy. Avoiding the press creates a media vacuum which the press will begin to fill. In the absence of useful material from the Harris campaign, there are numerous questions screaming to fill that void. The longer she goes without speaking to the press the greater the scrutiny when she does and the stronger the pressure on the media to scrutinize her.

Two examples come from unexpected sources, Axios and CNN. CNN provided Harris with her first highly edited interview with softball questions and no apparent follow-up. After she became the presumptive nominee, Axios denied that Harris was ever border czar as VP despite their prior reporting calling her the border czar. Both have noted the contradiction between her newly stated support for a border wall and all her prior statements.

Axios additionally detailed the difference between her current positions on Medicare for All and banning fracking and her prior stated positions. The honest answer to why her positions have changed is that her prior positions are very unpopular, but she can't say that. Her campaign strategy is less a choice, than a necessity. There are no compelling explanations for why she supported The Green New Deal and banning fracking and opposed the border wall and now says her position is the exact opposite on each topic. It's better to avoid explaining at all. It is a strategy that must fail, in the sense of making the candidate more attractive, while still allowing enough people to ignore the danger of electing such a cowardly candidate because they hate Trump. It allows her to be an empty screen onto which people project their desired candidate or an empty box to be filled by their political desires. This explains the diversity of her endorsements from Putin, who likely sees her as weak, to Dick Cheney, who likely sees her as in line with his neoliberal values. In the end, we are left to speculate on the reasons for their professed support in much the same way we are left to speculate on what she would do as president, because she's been too afraid to say.








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that ...

The Due Process Industrial Complex: "Are We the Constitutional Crisis?"

Democrats, seemingly resigned to political irrelevance, have shifted from principled opposition to obstructionism. They are seeking to stall or block the Trump administration's fulfillment of voter will.  In the face of popular demand for mass deportation of illegal aliens they have positioned themselves as self-appointed experts on due process. Their demands for due process might hold greater totemic power if not undermined by apparent hypocrisy, having supported limited due process for January 6 defendants. The demand for due process is desperate political opportunism driven by faulty political calculus. This explains why a US senator and congressional representatives traveled to El Salvador over a single deported alien. They are demanding that illegal aliens receive more vetting for deportation than they received on entering the country under Biden. In 2016, 38% of Americans supported deporting all undocumented immigrants. Today that number is 56% . There is nothing quite like i...

Drowning in Denial, Grasping at Straws-- Democrat's Desperate Bid For Male Voters

The phrase "grasping at straws," from Sir Thomas More's proverb, "A drowning man will clutch at straw," captures a desperate, futile attempt to avoid an inevitable end. It evokes a person falling off a cliff, frantically grabbing for anything to halt their doom. In cinema, this creates tension as the hero snatches a sturdy shrub at the last second. In politics, it signals a refusal to face reality. The Democrats' new $20 million Speaking With American Men (SAM) initiative to attract male voters is a textbook example. This effort is less substantial than straw, likely pushing men further away. It delays confronting the obvious: the party's positions alienate men, offer little to women beyond abortion, and oppose the interests of native-born Americans-- also know as voters. A late May New York Times article by Shane Goldmacher highlights the Democrat's struggle to recover from Trump's re-election. He notes, "Democratic donors and strategists ...