This is only the second day post election, but already it seems the Kamala Harris campaign was something that happened a hundred years ago. Various pundits have blamed just about everyone in North America for why Harris lost, especially Harris. She went too far left. She didn’t go left enough. Blah blah blah. I don’t fault her or her campaign, which I think was brilliant. But I see now the deck was stacked against her in many ways, and her being a woman of color was just part of that.
The best thing I’ve read so far about the election is by Rebecca Solnit at The Guardian, Our mistake was to think we lived in a better country than we do. It begins:
Our mistake was to think we lived in a better country than we do. Our mistake was to see the joy, the extraordinary balance between idealism and pragmatism, the energy, the generosity, the coalition-building of the Kamala Harris campaign and think that it must triumph over the politics of lies and resentment. Our mistake was to think that racism and misogyny were not as bad as they are, whether it applied to who was willing to vote for a supremely qualified Black woman or who was willing to vote for an adjudicated rapist and convicted criminal who admires Hitler. Our mistake was to think we could row this boat across the acid lake before the acid dissolved it.
The three primary causes of our dysfunction, Solnit says, are “the crisis of masculinity, the failure of the mainstream news media and the rise of Silicon Valley,” But let’s look first at the failure of the mainstream news media, which to me is the most obvious problem.
The media might be the simplest to describe. A democracy requires an informed citizenry, and the US media over the past eight years in particular created an increasingly misinformed citizenry.
This is a problem that goes back a whole lot further than eight years. And part of the problem isn’t really media’s fault, exactly. The media infrastructure is massively fragmented, much more so than it was back when most folks caught Walter Cronkite or Huntley-Brinkley at least a few times every week. I suspect a whole lot of U,.S. citizens have very little exposure to anything resembling “mainstream media” and instead are relying on social media and the massive right-wing media bubble. Still, mainstream media wasn’t exactly doings its job.
When people are more concerned that a trans girl might play on a softball team than that the climate crisis might profoundly devastate the biosphere and much of life on it, human and otherwise, for the next 10,000 years, the media has failed. When people worry about crime when it is low, an economy when it is thriving and immigrants when they do much of the hard work that sustains that economy and commit fewer crimes than the native-born, the media has failed.
When it came to Donald Trump, they went easy on him, and they again and again let him and the far right set the agenda. They constantly treated asymmetrical issues as symmetrical ones – if the Democrats resisted Republican outrages, both sides were “polarized”. In the media everything had two sides, even if one side was the truth and the other was the lie, one side was the human rights or the law and the other side was their violation.
The “sanewashing” of Trump and hyper-criticism of Harris were just too blatant to not notice, yet many cannot see it. I give some credit to the New York Times and a few other outlets for sounding the alarm on Trump’s mental issues in the final three weeks or so of the campaign, but that was after us small-fry bloggers and independent media had been screaming at them about it for a long, long time,
[Update: See Ryan Cooper at The American Prospect, Time for Democrats to Abandon the Mainstream Media for another perspective.]
I’ve written about the “masculinity crisis” before, such as here. This may be a problem that goes back to the beginnings of human history, frankly. Joseph Campbell was writing about it back in the late 1940s. But exacerbating this is the rise of influence of the infinitely weatlhy Silicon Valley tech bros, like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, who now have the money and connections to remake the political landscape to their liking. These guys do all seem to have massive gender identification issues.
And another problem is that too many Americans don’t seem to know the first thing about how government actually works.
One mistake I think Joe Biden made — and Barack Obama before him — is that he didn’t find a way to communicate directly and frequently to the American people about what he was doing and why he was doing it. I’m thinking about FDR’s fireside chats, which unfortunately wouldn’t work today because of the aforementioned fracturing of media infrastructure and the nation’s attention. But it’s obvious most Americans had no clue what caused the inflation they hated or even that it was a global phenomenon and not just something Biden caused. Biden was hailed around the globe for his skill at bring inflation down without causing a recession, but most U.S. citizens never heard any of that. They just knew eggs cost more than they used to (mostly because of a bird flu).
[Update: I just saw this at TPM, and it speaks to the previous paragraph —
From TPM Reader CK …
I’ve been a reporter in North Carolina for 30 years, covering the coast and rural counties. For many months, and continuing to this day, there are millions and millions of dollars of Biden Infrastructure and IRA funds pouring into rural communities here for projects to address needs that have been neglected or ignored for decades: wastewater treatment system upgrades, removal of lead pipes in water systems; repairs of rotting boardwalks and docks in small waterfront and fishing communities; mitigation of saltwater intrusion in farm fields, flood resilience in low-elevations; etc, etc. They’re all necessities that will result in real honest-to-god improvements in people’s lives. Virtually none of the beneficiaries — fishers, farmers, residents in communities vulnerable to sea level rise— have any idea that Biden was the reason they have those improvements, or will be getting them soon (when Trump will no doubt take credit.) The Democrats and the administration should have been bragging constantly and everywhere about the funds and the economic recovery. Government subsidies have lifted a nascent renewables industry into a booming profitable job-creator. Again, the messaging to the public about all of these economic factors should have been short, sweet and constant.
Yep.]
It’s a weird thing about group psychology that has long been noted by social psychologsts. A person who talks a lot about morality is perceived as being moral even if his behavior really isn’t. The most assertive/aggressive people in a group end up being leaders even if they are morons. Likewise, Trump is always bragging about what a great job he did or is doing, no matter how incompetent he is, and somehow a least some people assume he must be doing a good job. And the news sources they may consume don’t say otherwise, at least not strongly enough.
Control of the House still hasn’t been determined, althugh at the moment Republicans are somewhat ahead. This may take a few more days, I understand.
On a more practical level, Harris was thrust into the hot seat only 3-4 months ago. Had Biden announced early on that he would not be a candidate, this would've allowed the normal primary vetting to occur, and the normal testing of messages – in essence a competitive process that might've produced a better result.
That Harris and her team performed at such a high level, flawlessly hitting all the emotional notes with the base, and fearlessly winning at so many of the typical campaign events is nothing short of remarkable, but it just wasn't enough to win most of the country.
We definitely don't live in a better country, which can't easily be changed, but we should've listened more carefully to what Trump voters were complaining about, and addressed them properly. And yes, Biden was terrible at PR (what do you expect from an 80-year-old who talks in a whisper).
Wanted to share something that came across my Facebook feed (from "Seniors for a Democratic Society"):
Jimmy Kimmel reacts to Trump's win. Around 7:45 he recites a long list of people and causes for whom Nov 5 was a terrible day – even breaking up in the middle of it – and concludes: it was also a terrible night for everyone who voted For Trump, they just don't know it yet.
I will leave the link to a short scene from Star Trek TNG, but the significant line (from Piccard to Data) is: "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness—That is life."
https://youtu.be/t4A-Ml8YHyM
There is a premise among some Democrats doing the autopsy that playing the cards in a different order would have yielded victory. I don't think that's true this time. I think Harris was a good candidate. I think her message was good, and properly delivered. President Biden and VP Harris did a VERY good job over four years. Consider that Covid was peaking when Biden took over. By any objective measure, we were better off after four years of Biden/Harris than we were with four years of Trump.
There's an interesting article from Salon I will link to. To summarize, Don Lemon did a lot of "man on the street" interviews that show "the profound extent to which the public's aversion to facts and information has reorganized our reality." Or less politely – a big chunk of the electorate is bat-shit crazy. Not addressed in the article is how COVID hysteria fed the insanity. I'm referring to the kooks who felt that I was violating their rights if I wore a mask. The same people who see vaccines as a health hazard. Untethered from reality cannot describe the interstellar gulf between their opinions and objective fact.
If this is true, how did Biden win in 2020? Simple – enough people were aware that Trump was failing to contain COVID-19 and he had no grasp on what to do. (The very public gaffe of proposing we drink Lysol and shine a bright light up … where the sun don't shine proved what a buffon Trump is. And nobody was laughing while so many were dying. This election, not enough people were afraid for their lives in a very real way. IMO, that was the difference.
So we had two "Covid" elections. One we won because the death toll was climbing and none of Trump's promises or proposals were working. But COVID created some deep-seated distrust of public health despite the obvious fact that the proper application of prudent health policies brought COVID-19 under control. In 2024, the crazies are not in fear of their lives, so they are fighting imaginary monsters.
The list is of monsters is ridiculous – dangerous criminals from all over the world have been brought to the US by Harris to rape and pillage anyone white. The FBI is evil. The DOJ is evil. The justice system is corrupt. "They" are out to turn your girl into a boy and your boy into a girl – without your permission. I mentioned vaccines. Do away with the education system. Climate change is a hoax, Russia was justified in invading Ukraine. Muslims alone are at fault for what Israel is doing to Gaza. NATO is an oppressive force in Europe. Tariffs won't drive up consumer costs. We must not tax the rich. The media is lying to you – you can only trust Trump. The Deep State is (fill in the blank with your favorite conspiracy theory.)
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/07/don-man-on-the-street/
If the price of winning an election is joining the kooks, I'd advocate for continuing to lose. The GOP did that (patronizing the nuts) when they thought they could control the monster they made. They have been consumed.
It's a tenet of mine that you can ignore reality but reality will not ignore you. What Trump and the GOP propose to do will bring misery to us all (where "us" is the working class.) This happened a century ago when stupid policy by the GOP brought on the Great Depression. A majority Republican country turned liberal – when the pain was severe enough. Democrats are not gonna bring the pain – it will all be the fault of the GOP.
Some have said a female minority person was a mistake. America is not "ready" and the Harris defeat proves it. I had no reservations about voting for Harris because I think when was totally qualified for the job. I'd have foted for almost anything and anyone over Trump but Harris was not a bottom-of-the-barrel candidate. I'd probably vote for her again – and the only reason I say "probably" is I don't know the other potential candidates. In the primary, I will support the "best" candidate without considering race or gender as a qualifying ot disqualifying factor.