Let’s reflect on the obvious alternative to today’s chaotic state of the Democratic party, which, with only a few months left until the election and just weeks before its convention, finds itself without a presidential candidate. Imagine a parallel universe where, after watching his own faltering, often incoherent performances on YouTube, an elderly president heroically honors his implied 2020 promise and announces in January 2023 that he won’t run for another term. This advance notice allows a diverse array of candidates to enter the race, offering the party a chance to showcase its “deep bench.”
In this parallel reality, the Democrats don’t rush to rinse their VP in a superficial makeover but instead acknowledge the widespread unpopularity of Kamala Harris. Sure, she runs, but doesn’t fare much better than in her initial presidential bid, where she dropped out before even testing her support in a primary.
There’s been chatter about an “open” Democratic convention where a variety of presidential hopefuls battle it out in a civilized manner, drawing excited media attention and engaging a disheartened electorate. However, the Democratic party’s elite, who view democracy more as an inconvenience than a principle, are unlikely to leave the nomination to chance. Betting on Kamala Harris becoming the nominee seems a safe wager.
Kamala Harris is an intellectual lightweight—I’m being generous here. She struggles to think on her feet, never says anything original or insightful, and often fails to memorize the party line for public appearances. Like Jill Biden, she often adopts a condescending kindergarten-teacher persona, which comes off as insincere and grating. Most voters—and children—can sense a fake a mile away. Even Democrats are now saying – Trump may be a jerk, but at least he’s genuine.
Harris’s approach to her primary task, addressing the chaos at the southern border, has been not just ineffective but nonexistent. When asked why she hadn’t visited the border, she famously laughed and said, “Well, I haven’t been to Europe, either!” This was hardly the sparkling retort she seemed to think it was. She insists the border is secure, another example of the Democratic “gaslighting” that’s become so frequent it’s nauseating.
Harris’s focus on the progressive DEI agenda is unsurprising since it’s this obsession with identity over competence that landed her in the VP spot. Biden chose her because she ticked multiple diversity boxes: female, Black, and South Asian. As president, she’d be painfully out of her depth, making it easier for progressive hard-leftists to manipulate her policies.
Kamala Harris embodies the Peter Principle on steroids, a mediocrity elevated to high office due to affirmative action. When Harris faces Trump in November, the race will unlikely be close. Someone like independent Senator Joe Manchin, who restrained some of Biden’s more fiscally disastrous policies, could have been a match to Trump—but Manchin is seen as a traitor by many Democrats and isn’t a realistic option.
The post-debate drama, the chaos, and the sudden, cynical rebranding of Kamala Harris as the savior of the party are all Biden’s fault. He should never have run for another term. Blame also lies with the countless enablers in the administration, Congress, and the media who smugly believed they could run a potted plant for president without anyone noticing it needed watering.
This high-stakes political theatre might be entertaining from a distance, but for the dems trapped between two unacceptable choices, it offers no relief. Instead, after a metaphorical political assassination, they must feel disgruntled and resentful, facing the prospect of voting for a candidate they find completely unqualified for the job.
