Review of World Affairs

• Biden’s Unprecedented Exit From the US Presidential Race

     US Democrats’ Crisis of Faith in Biden   

      Overcome

By Shashi P.B.B.Malla

VP Kamala Harris to the Breach

On Sunday, President Joe Biden finally released a statement to say he is standing aside as the Democratic candidate for president in November.

This was excellent news, and in the U.S. and around the world, there was a collective sigh of relief.

Biden has been a strong president and should be proud of what he has achieved in just one term in the White House.

He did finally realize that he is too old, frail and unfortunately disliked to have had any reasonable chance of beating Donald Trump.

According to Adam Roberts of The Economist, now “another candidate, almost any other candidate, will have a better opportunity” (July 21).

Biden has endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris (who is of Jamaican and South Indian origin) to replace him.

This could mean that a coronation is looming for Ms. Harris, or the Democrats might somehow organize a speedy, but genuinely competitive contest to see who the strongest candidate might be.

US Democrats Played Chicken With Biden

US Democrats’ crisis of faith in President Joe Biden had become a game of chicken, the prominent CNN-host Fareed Zakaria wrote in his latest Washington Post column.

As prominent Democrats like former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Chuck Schumer [and it is rumoured even former President Barack Obama] pressured Biden to drop his re-election bid and allow a different candidate to face former President Donald Trump in November, they had no real means to force him from the race (Fareed’s Global Briefing, July 19).

All they could do was “pressure Biden behind the scenes, publicly embarrass him, and threaten to leave him broke and alone on the (campaign) trail,” Zakaria wrote.

“But these are just threats. They have power only if Biden believes them – believes that the party will stand firm against him even as Election Day gets closer and the risk of another Trump presidency rises.”

On the bright side for Democrats, Zakaria wrote, the Biden crisis could lead to changes in how the party selects its presidential candidates.

Since the 1970s, that power has rested mostly with registered partisans voting in state primaries, not the leaders and elected officials who used to enjoy more freedom – as “superdelegates” at nominating conventions – to throw meaningful weight behind candidates of their choosing.

“Changing candidates for November could be the beginning of a broader reset,” Zakaria writes.

“Party leaders should reform the primary system to balance the power of the activist minority with the more mainstream majority – more superdelegates with the freedom to vote as they wish would be one important step .  .  .

“The message of the Democratic Party should be shaped by its governors, senators and mayors, not activists and academics .  .  .

“The next few weeks could begin a shift that would make the Democratic Party more attractive to more Americans for decades.”

‘Trump is Still Trump’

Before Trump took the stage to deliver his keynote address at the Republican National Convention (RNC) on Thursday last week – his first major appearance since being shot in the ear in a failed assassination attempt Saturday – word spread among delegates that his tone would be very different, The Atlantic’s McKay Coppins writes.

Trump would call for unity and appear somber, rather than combative, and “delegates should not yell ‘Fight! Fight!’ – the words Trump had famously shouted as Secret Service agents surrounded him in Pennsylvania,” Coppins reports.

For the first part of his speech, Trump was different. But it didn’t last.

“After delivering his message of hope and unity,” The New Statesman’s Katie Stallard writes, “he veered off into rambling litany of his greatest grievances, from his claims that the 2020 election was stolen, to the ‘partisan witch hunts’ supposedly being wages against him, to ‘crazy Nancy Pelosi’, and how the Democrats were ‘weaponizing’ the justice system.”

The important takeaway, Stallard writes, was that Trump is vulnerable: “As many Americans backed slowly away from their television sets, freshly reminded of what, exactly, the first Trump presidency was really like, it was clear for the first time since Biden’s calamitous debate in June, that this election is not a foregone conclusion .  .  .

“Trump is still (the old) Trump, and his running mate, [Ohio Senator] J.D. Vance, is a polarizing figure, who has previously endorsed a nationwide abortion ban and cast serious doubt on whether he would have certified the results of the last election .  .  .

“Biden’s time is over. But the Trump-Vance ticket is beatable, if only the Democrats can get their act together.”

A consistent Trump critic, The New Yorker’s Susan B. Glasser draws the same conclusion, writing: “He is the same Trump, only four years older, angrier, and far, far more incoherent than anyone who has any business being President of the United States .  .  .

“If Biden can’t beat him. Then surely someone else can — and must.”

In his newsletter “Home & Away”, the president- emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Richard Haass deduces that the Democrats are belatedly coming to the conclusion that Joe Biden cannot be their standard bearer because he is not only likely to lose but also in the process make it impossible for the party to hold the Senate or win back the House.

The polls have a margin of error, but they also have a degree of accuracy. The Trump-Vance ticket is formidable.

The prospect of a Republican takeover of the entire federal government – the White House, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court [already tilted in favour of the Republicans, 6 to 3 justices] – has concentrated minds.

Haass didn’t rule out that Biden and the narrowing inner circle might choose to hang on.

But he had the feeling that “Biden will step aside lest his legacy be stained by a one-sided loss that brought to power people set on undermining much of the good that he did over the course of his career and presidency” (H & A, July 19).

Haass points to the precedent of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who stayed too long and then contributed to the political right obtaining the majority in SCOTUS.

The Possibility for VP Kamala Harris

Haass had also conjectured that Biden’s hesitation/obstinacy strengthened the odds Vice Presidency Kamala Harris would be at the top of the ticket.

But he actually thinks she would be better served by not having the nomination handed to her.

Winning it at the Democratic Convention next month in Chicago would give her added strength – as well as some useful preparation for taking on Trump and Vance.

At the same time, it would make it easier for her to selectively distance herself from Biden, something Haass argues is essential given the anti-incumbent mood and the unpopularity of some of Biden’s policies.

As a centrist analyst, Haass hoped very much that Biden makes the right decision soon.

Democratic Consensus Solidifies Around Harris

No one quite knew what the process of picking a new nominee would be if Joe Biden did step aside – but many Democrats said that any process is likelier than ever to quickly end with Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee (CNN Politics, July 20).

Internal polls show Harris would be more helpful to boosting Democratic enthusiasm and aiding down ballot races.

Arguments that she would be fastest to put together a campaign are landing harder.

The vision of her making a more active and vigorous case against Donald Trump are taking root.

Biden’s hand would matter

Few did conceive of Biden stepping aside and not tapping his running mate to take over.

To have done otherwise would have been a devastating insult to her of the sort that pained Biden himself so much when Barack Obama turned to Hillary Clinton over him ahead of the 2016 election.

He’d also be undercutting his own judgement in picking her four years ago as ready for the job, which he reiterated at a news conference: She is not only a great VP, she ‘could be president’.

Rejecting her now, would mean passing over a Black vice president after Black voters and Black leaders – including South Carolina Representative Jim Clyburn – not only sustained him to victory in 2020 but are some of the ones standing most strongly with him through the internal party crisis now.

That kind of support would likely only lead to more, which would be convincing to delegates and voters alike – and make opposing her harder and harder.

Kamala Harris and Gretchen Whitmer could make a winning ticket for Democrats

Julian Zelizer, a CNN political analyst, is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

He is the author and editor of 25 books, including the forthcoming “Our Nation at Risk: Election Integrity as a National Security Issue.”

In a recent commentary, Prof. Zelizer concluded that if Biden decides to withdraw from the presidential election, Democrats need not fear – they have a ticket in front of them that can still defeat Republican n ominee Donald Trump.

According to Zelizer, not only would a ticket with Kamala Harris as president and Michigan governor  Gretchen Whitmer as her running mate have the best odds of getting the party through this moment of crisis, but also the potential to excite voters and produce a historic outcome.

This combination would also satisfy the axiom put forth by the brilliant Democratic strategist David Axelrod in 2016, when he explained why Trump defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton:

“Voters rarely seek the replica of what they have. They almost seek the remedy, the candidate who has the personal qualities the public finds lacking in the departing executive.”

[The ‘Axelrod Axiom’ thus complements/supplements the prevailing anti-incumbancy dictum. With a Harris/Whitmer ticket, the Democrats could have their cake and eat it too!].

The Princeton professor further elaborates that  should Biden step aside, a presidential candidate who is Black, Asian American and decades younger may provide the change voters are craving.

The two-woman ticket would create a stark contrast with Trump and Vance; while the former president and his VP-nominee would represent more of the same, Harris and Whitmer would offer a fresh vision of what America is all about.

A Harris-Whitmer campaign could also deal the ultimate blow to a Republican campaign that has revolved around strength defined by toxic masculinity.

But this ticket would be more than symbolic.

Both Harris and Whitmer have been passionate and effective champions of what could be the defining issue in 2024: reproductive rights.

Polls have shown strong national support for legal abortion. Harris and Whitmer would be convincing foils to Trump, who has repeatedly taken credit for overturning Roe vs. Wade by nominating three conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

Zelizer elaborates his argument further: “While Trump has struggled with suburban woman, who were crucial organizers, canvassers, mobilizers and voters in 2018, 2020 and 2022 [including the general election and mid-terms], Harris and Whitmer would have more than enough time to tap into this pool of electoral strength and make sure that they come out in droves.”

Harris and Whitmer also offer experience and stability in governing.

Harris has served as attorney general of California, US senator, and vice president.

Whitmer has been a successful and popular governor in the crucial swing state of Michigan.

Both are serious and enthusiastic about ‘policy’.

Few can challenge their expertise when it comes to being interested in the nuts and bolts of governance.

The Harris-Whitmer ticket would symbolize order in contrast to Trumpian chaos, replicating some of the promise of Biden’s campaign in 2020, with an added dose of youth.

The Glass Ceiling & Unintended Consequences

The Harris-Whitmer ticket would obviously break the political glass ceiling. It would also have unintended consequences – which Zelizer has not yet discerned, but will consequently, if the historical ticket bears fruit in November.

For the first time in US history, the vice presidency will be transformed. The VP will no longer play only second fiddle to the president, but participate actively in policy making and decision making.

Then there is also the benefit of continuity, as Zelizer points out.

With Harris running for president, the Democrats can still boast about the policy accomplishments of the Biden-Harris administration, from infrastructure to investment in semi-conductors.

The transition from Biden to Harris would also be a natural, seamless one that would make it easier to build on the enormous campaign funds that the Democrats have already raised. In any case, once a ticket like this is solidified, campaign funding would not be a major issue.

Zelizer underlines the fact that both Harris and Whitmer were once experienced legal prosecutors, and their ticket would create a ready-made television spotlight: the law-and-order prosecutors versus the convicted felon.

“Both Harris and Whitmer could use their laser-like prosecutorial skills to combat Trump’s endless exaggerations, false claims, and disinformation .  .  .

“Unlike Biden at the debate, they would not be tied up in knots by Trump’s barrage of falsehoods.”

Zelizer raises the supremely significant question, which should also be asked of discerning voters in the landmark 2024 elections:

         “What is the United States all about?”

With this ticket, voters would have to think hard about what they want to tell the country and the world.

Do Harris and Whitmer reflect core American values, or does Donald Trump?

[It is astounding that Zelizer’s precise and astute CNN-commentary has not found more traction among Democratic activists. It can be rated as an elevated ‘TO DO’ manual for ‘clueless Democrats’ caught up in the terrible electoral crisis of ‘super grandpop Biden’s’ making. He should be closely consulted as the ‘Guru’ of the Democrats’ electoral campaign].

The writer can be reached at: shashipballa@hotmail.com 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.