A reliable way of staying relevant is to rail at something or someone a lot of other people admire.
A jibe at Simon Harris’s phenomenal energy or social media presence is a common one, while simultaneously banging on about the need for politicians to somehow reach out to young people. Or savaging the Labour Party for going into coalition in 2011 knowing that it anchored the only possible government arrangement while the country was falling apart.
Kamala Harris is the latest target. While the Democrats are riding a wave of genuine energy that can’t be bought or faked, the stay-relevant crowd can only murmur darkly at her deferral of the traditional sit-down interviews about policy.
It’s about five weeks since Donald Trump was grazed by a bullet. It’s less than four since Harris signed the forms officially declaring her candidacy.
Trump has been running his campaign for three years and seven months. Harris has jump-started a presidential campaign in three weeks. She united the party behind her (astoundingly) and hit the road, packed in the crowds in at least 18 rallies, interviewed running mates, shared goals and good vibes with Tim Walz in the palsy way that Barack Obama once (ostensibly) had with Joe Biden, drew out the serious endorsers and the celebrities, unleashed enormous funding, earned tons of the free airtime that used to be Trump’s sole prerogative (worth about $2 billion to him in 2016), prepared for the convention and her big address to America, shifted the polls to her side, trolled Trump on his own platform with snaps of their contrasting crowds and – most astonishingly – sparked wholehearted joy in much of the world. All while maintaining due respect and consideration for the president in advance of her formal confirmation this week.
On Saturday in Pennsylvania, Trump referred to her as a “radical” and a “lunatic”. On Sunday in a single hour he posted or reposted 22 truly strange thoughts on his platform that included fake polls, a self-comparison to Abraham Lincoln, attacks and threats on people, fake AI pictures of fake Swifties for Trump. On a bus tour of Pennsylvania the same day, Harris never mentioned Trump’s name, only this: “Over the last several years, there’s been this kind of perversion that has taken place, I think, which is to suggest that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down. When what we know is the real and true measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up. That’s what strength looks like. Anybody who’s about beating down other people is a coward”.
None of which is to suggest that she should get a free pass to the White House. The only sure thing about this election is that Harris will get the opposite of a free pass. The stay-relevants will have their pound of flesh well done – but they already know that. For every legitimate question about the economy or immigration, there will be 70,000 posts depicting Harris as an alcoholic, as a brainless beneficiary of the DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) liberal agenda, as a “slut” who slept her way to the top. Trump’s Monday offering was a song parody about how Harris “spent her whole damn life down on her knees”.
In 2016 Trump accused Hillary Clinton of playing “the woman’s card” to get where she was, attacking her “stamina” and mocking her voice. Eight years on he accuses Harris of playing “the racecard”, race-baiting her, mocking her name, smearing her race, calling her bitch, lunatic, communist, “Dumb as a Rock”. “All we have to do is define our opponent as a communist or a socialist or someone who’s going to destroy the country,” he said this month. The zone will be flooded with sh*t exactly as Steve Bannon prescribed in his how-to-fascist advice.
It’s only a couple of weeks since Trump was leading in the polls and refusing even to debate with her. Where were all the think-pieces then?
Harris’s decision to defer formal interviews in the frenetic drive to build campaign momentum, to reintroduce and define herself to America is as much a question for US media (and some closer to home) as it is for her campaign. Where have they all been for the past four years? She was always the most prepared person for the job. Journalists who have spoken to her privately confirm she has no problem with detailed policy questions. Who took their eye off the ball and why?
Meanwhile the both sides-ing gallops on despite the Republican’s obvious bad faith. Questions thrown at Harris are usually about Trump’s latest moronic zinger rather than about policy. His malignant meanderings, lies and exaggerations are normalised.
The “light on policy” indignant ones needn’t fret. The debates are coming. So are the policy-led interviews. Her broad goals are clear, though it seems that she and her team have figured out that these elections are about anything but issues and policy. If detailed policy knowledge really mattered to a lot of voters, Hillary Clinton would be president for life and Brexit would not have lasted five minutes. Pressing for five-point plans while Trump’s placemen plot to challenge a Democrat win and he stands ready to execute Project 2025 seems a touch misguided.
Is Harris trustworthy? Can she lead? Give her the respect and the time to reveal herself.