Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate have settled on a campaign strategy that involves hiding from the press and refusing to offer policy specifics.
You may think it’s cowardly — frustrating even. But it’s a smart move.
Though the approach reflects poorly on our selectively brave Fourth Estate, whose response to the Harris strategy has yet to move beyond light scolding, the real significance lies in what it reveals about the electorate. What matters, according to too many voters, is not who the candidate is or what his or her qualifications are but that the candidate is on the correct team. We have regressed into near-total tribalization.
Harris refuses to provide a detailed policy platform because she can. She declines potentially tough media interviews, allowing for only the occasional sitdown with remarkably deferential lickspittles, because she can. She won’t answer questions about blatant flip-flops because she doesn’t have to. She knows she can get away with this. The press won’t apply any real pressure for her to change, and, more importantly, the Democratic base does not care. The base is locked in, regardless of what Harris does. This is less than ideal, considering this is also true of her opponent’s supporters.
When there are only two ruling parties, and their respective bases are loyal no matter the quality of their candidate, we get what we deserve.
On average, only 57% of all voting-eligible voters participate in presidential elections. This trend has held steady for half a century. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan trounced Jimmy Carter in a landslide victory, only 52.8% of the voting-eligible population cast a ballot. Even in 2008, when former President Barack Obama enchanted the world, only 61.6% of the voting-eligible population turned out for the election.
This trend is in addition to the fact that our country is split. Forty-eight percent of voters lean Republican, while 45% lean Democratic, according to Gallup. As for those who identify as solidly Democratic or Republican, the percentages are much smaller at 27% for each.
So, in a country where a little more than half of the voting-eligible population ever bothers to vote in presidential elections, where the hardcore bases are equal in size, and where the percentages of those who lean either Democratic or Republican are essentially the same, Harris has every reason to stay out of sight.
There’s only a very lean percentage of genuine “swing voters.” The worst thing the Democratic nominee can do right now is draw unwanted attention by staking out an unpopular or controversial policy position, thus handing swing voters a fresh reason not to support her.
The question should not be, “Why has Harris adopted a strategy to avoid questions about policy?” but “Why wouldn’t she?” It’s not as though her allies demand otherwise from her.
There’s also precedent for keeping out of sight.
The run-and-duck strategy worked well in the previous election for Joe Biden, the pitiful figurehead-type mascot who currently shuffles around the White House, insisting he is the president. In 2020, likely well into his cognitive decline, Biden campaigned from his basement, claiming it was for pandemic-related reasons. Knowing what we know now, namely, that Biden’s descent into dotardry apparently began years before the 2020 election, it’s safe to assume the basement campaign had nothing to do with COVID-19 and everything to do with his team fearing a traditional campaign would reveal the true extent of his senility. It was a clever move, keeping Biden’s public exposure to a minimum.
Further, the basement strategy worked for Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, who barely campaigned in 2022 compared to her wild-eyed Republican opponent, Kari Lake. Hobbs adopted the same approach used earlier by Biden and now by Harris: keep it vague and light and let your divisive opponent do all the talking.
Sadly, as is often the case with “smart” political strategies, the Harris, Hobbs, and Biden cases reveal a more profound and unflattering truth about the electorate. That the bases don’t revolt, demanding more transparency and details from their champions, suggests a tribalism of such concentration that even a total midwit may find support as long as he or she flies the colors.
Democratic voters aren’t clamoring for Harris’s policy positions. They aren’t demanding she explain in minute detail which policies, if any, she supports now compared to when she first ran for president in 2020 or when she campaigned for district attorney in San Francisco. They aren’t even asking for a coherent vision for America.
They don’t care. She’s not former President Donald Trump, which is good enough for them.
Complain all you want about the quality of our candidates, but remember this: ours is a representative government. Our candidates are reflections of the electorate.
We get what we deserve.
Becket Adams is a columnist for the Washington Examiner, National Review, and The Hill. He is also the program director of the National Journalism Center.
Note: Remember, even in Jackson we have exactly what we deserve….
