I am highly skeptical of Harris for a number of reasons. I’m not sure why you think I should believe her even if she claims the center. Her lack of interviews is disturbing and her hyper-partisan “questioning” of Kavanaugh came off, to me, as unserious. Her choice of Waltz, who has moved from center very much toward the left (no limits on abortion, delay in calling for National Guard after mayor’s request during heavy riots, not understanding free speech,….) is another danger and is, IMO, not that smart and unfit for the presidency. I suspect Harris chose Waltz because the other VP considerations would outshine her.
Although I once often voted mostly Dem, the far left with their identity politics and blindness toward antisemitism is driving me away. I would vote for Haley in a heartbeat.
I see this as a very serious time for the world with China, Russian and Iran all testing us. I do not think either candidate is fit for the job. I was horrified that Trump was elected last time, but I’m not sure Harris can handle our affairs better and may, at least in some ways, be worse.
I couldn't agree more. This was the missed opportunity of the century:
“'We are fighting for an inclusive America in which your gender and the color of your skin does not determine your place in society, your opportunities in life—or which Zoom call you’re invited to,' she might have said by way of explanation."
This would not have cost her a single Democrat vote, and it might have convinced a lot of independents and Republicans who are voting for Trump only because they abhor identity politics so much.
I get this point about Harris moving to “the center” on some key issues and many others are saying the same thing. But it seems to me that there is something important being missed in all of this “positioning” talk. First, no matter how much she were to moderate her positions, the vast majority of Trump voters will never learn this because the MAGA cultosphere simply does not let in any such information, period. Tens of millions of Americans have no idea what her true positions are and never will because they don’t live in a universe where this information is shared, permitted, or tolerated. Quite the opposite, this is a universe defined by Trump himself and so she will, to these people, always be what Trump says she is. It’s the same for his caricatures of the state of the country and the world. It’s all lies all the time and no one in that universe cares to know any different
So this public demonstration of moderation would presumably make a difference to so-called swing or undecided voters. These are presumably voters not in the cult or and/or not willing to admit they are in the cult, and they demand moderation in all things. Well, except that they presumably do see some mainstream news and information and they are deciding between Trump and AAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL of his baggage, including felony indictments and convictions, election denialism and the attempt to overthrow our democracy, his ongoing and growing litany of threats to imprison all of his political enemies and round-up, throw into internment camps and deport millions of people, fill the streets with US troops to quell any and all dissent, set loose crazed groups of armed militia thugs to terrorize whomever they please, invite Putin to Dinner and invite him, further, to do with Ukraine and Europe what he wants. And SO much more. SO much more. Not to mention that HE HAS ALREADY SHOWN US WHO HE IS AND HOW HE WILL “GOVERN.” — Which is by his whims and without regard for what is lawful, moral, or good for anything but bringing him more adulation and money.
And so in the midst of this pretty full plate of information, even one item of which should be disqualifying, it’s up to Harris to prove that she’s moderate? It’s up to Harris to show that she’s a normal person with mainstream views who will govern with a true commitment to the Constitution and to freedom and democracy?
Come on.
This just doesn’t make any sense. There’s something just fundamentally missing in all of these analyses and I wish I knew what it was. But, if you aren’t fully in the Trump cult, how can you possibly, as an American, think that the choice isn’t absolutely clear and absolutely critical? I just don’t get it.
She’s a blue state AG that worked with the Feds to bust cannabis dispensaries in her state that she swore an oath to the constitution of. She literally snitched out her boys to the Feds. She’s a cop. And historically her social policies and aggressive prosecution have been anathema to the progressive left. She really is the embodiment of law and order in this race, especially since the guy running on that platform (?) is a convicted felon. He’s vowed to gut the Department of Justice and pardon domestic terrorists, amongst other impossible promises. How is she not center enough? She’s practically conservative compared to her state constituency.
I don’t know how much more center she can get. But if we’re using the lunacy induced ramblings of a syphilitic felon, racist, barely literate, stares directly at the sun, diaper wearing, con man, you have to realize the mean is so far off the median in this case, it might not even be under the curve. That’s not a fair “center” that Harris needs to aspire to.
Would you be willing to explain the-self description that appears when my mouse passes over your name? --- My love language is sass & snark. I briefly thought this was a unique space with bright folk who engage in healthy debate. But it’s just another place where anonymous idiots talk unsubstantiated shit.
Seems fairly straightforward to me. For Steve, what part needs explaining about my subjective assessments? For any other passerby caught in this moment who is curious about the context, it’s text from my personal user page describing my account.
I didn't visit your user page, my cursor just passed over your name and your little bio popped up. I'm mostly curious as to which space you found the "anonymous idiots" in.
Well, I use the app so I’m not sure how you viewed what is absolutely the only personal text on my Substack account page. However you found it, it doesn’t negate what I said in any fashion.
But to your primary focus, my early experience with Substack was full of people posting alarming if not outright egregious claims and statements supporting awful policy based on questionable data with no validity from shit studies using bad methods. Shortly after debunking some poor social science, and then just logic bombing a few of the race war accelerationist pages, the legions of cucks thirsting for positive confirmation bias content from discredited academics and racist trolls, starting filling my feed because of an algorithm mentality, I suppose.
But I’ve since been kindly blocked by most of the racialist keyboard warriors and now just contend with light-conservative rhetoric justifying their continued support for an authoritarian cult, a few academics that say some edgy stuff, and a ton of politico types who want relevance in the new media Opinion page sphere Substack has created. Not a lot of people with a ton of credibility, but enough respectable individuals with appreciable credentials to stick around and enjoy their shared work. Plus I love honest arguments, and absolutely live for trolling idiots.
I love this essay. It’s the only way to win back trust, and with so little of the public trusting politicians, trust is a truly valuable commodity. At the end you say this most clearly:
Any one of [these acknowledgments of policy errors] would **create an uproar among parts of the activist left.** Far from being this strategy’s bug, that should be seen as one of its attractive features.
It’s nearly impossible for a politician to win trust from untrusting voters with mere words. It takes verifiable action. The only such action she can take on the campaign trail is to deliberately “create an uproar among the activist left.” That’s why your recommendation is more than an “attractive feature." It's proof positive of having a spine.
Fortunately, this is easily done politely and while holding progressive principles. But the whole point is to publicly prove that she is willing to stand up and say something everyone knows will offend the far left.
In your next essay on this topic, I would like you to analyze why this winning strategy is almost never taken − Why didn’t Biden take a strong stand even against our fascist Antifa faction in 2020? Miscalculation? Intimidation? Is it proof that our leadership really cannot be trusted, that they will, in fact, let themselves be controlled by the extreme?
Harris and Walz have 40 years of combined public records. Forty years. Other than an occasional and clearly opportunistic political tact - like Walz forcing a radical county DA to drop a very weak murder case against a police officer after the outrage of a fellow officer (Mitchell) being assassinated by a wanted ganglord — there is zero evidence of any moderation in their records. You name the kooky Far Left priority from funding illegal transgender surgery to blow out tax increases to having the IRS go after $600 Venmo transfers to banning Voter ID to Covid snitch lines to social media censorship, Harris and Walz have been lockstep loyal partisan Leftist soldiers. What can Harris possibly say tonight to make us reverse a 40 year record of radicalism ? And why on earth would anyone believe her ? We are not talking Jared Polis or Kristen Sinema here with real evidence of moderation. These are both hard core ideologues going on 4 decades. In days of yore, any attempts to feign moderation would be laughed off.
Personally I don’t want her to take your advice because I do not want her as President in any circumstances. She is an opportunist, a liar and an incompetent. Her party is being captured by extremists including Islamic terrorists.
That does not mean I support Trump but I do think he will be good for the economy and international affairs. We also need urgent action to roll back DEI and the radical school of trans ideology, including the brainwashing and sterilization of schoolchildren.
In the 2020 primaries, Harris got so few votes you could count them on one hand. After multiple amputations. That is not my line. I got it from Bill Maher. Biden should have withdrawn from the 2024 race back in 2023 allowing the normal Democratic primary process. Harris would have been part of that. Would she have done any better than 2020? Probably not.
Bill Clinton did what you are suggesting in his presidential campaign when he had his "Sister Souljah moment" . Harris will likely lose badly without at least one and probably several of these.
I agree, and especially like this comment because it's pithy and concrete at the same time. And it actually proves something. I can be done and it can work.
"We are fighting for an inclusive America in which your gender and the color of your skin does not determine your place in society, your opportunities in life—or which Zoom call you’re invited to,”
Minor quibble. The word Mr. Mounk was looking for here was sex, not "gender." The former is real. "Gender" is a pernicious philosophical construct with no scientific basis. It has no business supplanting the term "sex".
Let's get beyond the policy issues. Harris has to tell us how she would lead the nation, how she would govern, how she would get things done. I believe that most of the electorate does not want to have four more years of a Trump administration and the chaos it would bring, but we do not know what a Harris administration would bring.
“Kamala Harris is on track to lose the election.” How can you be so sure?
There are many unknown unknowns in this election. Turnout and the ground game may play a critical role. Politics is a business. Look under the hood at the mechanics of the race.
I think you're missing the main point. It's still the economy. That's what's most important to most people and that''s where Trump has a very big edge––13 points in the NYT poll.
Harris should attack Trump's inflationary and gift- to-the-rich budget AND she should distance herself from Biden's inflationary overshoot on stimulus and say she's learned from that mistake. Biden is blamed, right or wrong, for the inflation, and Harris really needs separation from that.
The Democrat projection that candidates just need to shape shift to get the votes is freakin' weird give the youth demand for more authenticity in everything they consume.
I am highly skeptical of Harris for a number of reasons. I’m not sure why you think I should believe her even if she claims the center. Her lack of interviews is disturbing and her hyper-partisan “questioning” of Kavanaugh came off, to me, as unserious. Her choice of Waltz, who has moved from center very much toward the left (no limits on abortion, delay in calling for National Guard after mayor’s request during heavy riots, not understanding free speech,….) is another danger and is, IMO, not that smart and unfit for the presidency. I suspect Harris chose Waltz because the other VP considerations would outshine her.
Although I once often voted mostly Dem, the far left with their identity politics and blindness toward antisemitism is driving me away. I would vote for Haley in a heartbeat.
I see this as a very serious time for the world with China, Russian and Iran all testing us. I do not think either candidate is fit for the job. I was horrified that Trump was elected last time, but I’m not sure Harris can handle our affairs better and may, at least in some ways, be worse.
Haley will say and do anything for her political advantage. She's unprincipled and spineless.
Nobody could possibly handle the nation's affairs worse than the orange Caligula.
I couldn't agree more. This was the missed opportunity of the century:
“'We are fighting for an inclusive America in which your gender and the color of your skin does not determine your place in society, your opportunities in life—or which Zoom call you’re invited to,' she might have said by way of explanation."
This would not have cost her a single Democrat vote, and it might have convinced a lot of independents and Republicans who are voting for Trump only because they abhor identity politics so much.
I get this point about Harris moving to “the center” on some key issues and many others are saying the same thing. But it seems to me that there is something important being missed in all of this “positioning” talk. First, no matter how much she were to moderate her positions, the vast majority of Trump voters will never learn this because the MAGA cultosphere simply does not let in any such information, period. Tens of millions of Americans have no idea what her true positions are and never will because they don’t live in a universe where this information is shared, permitted, or tolerated. Quite the opposite, this is a universe defined by Trump himself and so she will, to these people, always be what Trump says she is. It’s the same for his caricatures of the state of the country and the world. It’s all lies all the time and no one in that universe cares to know any different
So this public demonstration of moderation would presumably make a difference to so-called swing or undecided voters. These are presumably voters not in the cult or and/or not willing to admit they are in the cult, and they demand moderation in all things. Well, except that they presumably do see some mainstream news and information and they are deciding between Trump and AAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL of his baggage, including felony indictments and convictions, election denialism and the attempt to overthrow our democracy, his ongoing and growing litany of threats to imprison all of his political enemies and round-up, throw into internment camps and deport millions of people, fill the streets with US troops to quell any and all dissent, set loose crazed groups of armed militia thugs to terrorize whomever they please, invite Putin to Dinner and invite him, further, to do with Ukraine and Europe what he wants. And SO much more. SO much more. Not to mention that HE HAS ALREADY SHOWN US WHO HE IS AND HOW HE WILL “GOVERN.” — Which is by his whims and without regard for what is lawful, moral, or good for anything but bringing him more adulation and money.
And so in the midst of this pretty full plate of information, even one item of which should be disqualifying, it’s up to Harris to prove that she’s moderate? It’s up to Harris to show that she’s a normal person with mainstream views who will govern with a true commitment to the Constitution and to freedom and democracy?
Come on.
This just doesn’t make any sense. There’s something just fundamentally missing in all of these analyses and I wish I knew what it was. But, if you aren’t fully in the Trump cult, how can you possibly, as an American, think that the choice isn’t absolutely clear and absolutely critical? I just don’t get it.
She’s a blue state AG that worked with the Feds to bust cannabis dispensaries in her state that she swore an oath to the constitution of. She literally snitched out her boys to the Feds. She’s a cop. And historically her social policies and aggressive prosecution have been anathema to the progressive left. She really is the embodiment of law and order in this race, especially since the guy running on that platform (?) is a convicted felon. He’s vowed to gut the Department of Justice and pardon domestic terrorists, amongst other impossible promises. How is she not center enough? She’s practically conservative compared to her state constituency.
I don’t know how much more center she can get. But if we’re using the lunacy induced ramblings of a syphilitic felon, racist, barely literate, stares directly at the sun, diaper wearing, con man, you have to realize the mean is so far off the median in this case, it might not even be under the curve. That’s not a fair “center” that Harris needs to aspire to.
Would you be willing to explain the-self description that appears when my mouse passes over your name? --- My love language is sass & snark. I briefly thought this was a unique space with bright folk who engage in healthy debate. But it’s just another place where anonymous idiots talk unsubstantiated shit.
Seems fairly straightforward to me. For Steve, what part needs explaining about my subjective assessments? For any other passerby caught in this moment who is curious about the context, it’s text from my personal user page describing my account.
I didn't visit your user page, my cursor just passed over your name and your little bio popped up. I'm mostly curious as to which space you found the "anonymous idiots" in.
Well, I use the app so I’m not sure how you viewed what is absolutely the only personal text on my Substack account page. However you found it, it doesn’t negate what I said in any fashion.
But to your primary focus, my early experience with Substack was full of people posting alarming if not outright egregious claims and statements supporting awful policy based on questionable data with no validity from shit studies using bad methods. Shortly after debunking some poor social science, and then just logic bombing a few of the race war accelerationist pages, the legions of cucks thirsting for positive confirmation bias content from discredited academics and racist trolls, starting filling my feed because of an algorithm mentality, I suppose.
But I’ve since been kindly blocked by most of the racialist keyboard warriors and now just contend with light-conservative rhetoric justifying their continued support for an authoritarian cult, a few academics that say some edgy stuff, and a ton of politico types who want relevance in the new media Opinion page sphere Substack has created. Not a lot of people with a ton of credibility, but enough respectable individuals with appreciable credentials to stick around and enjoy their shared work. Plus I love honest arguments, and absolutely live for trolling idiots.
I hope that’s a satisfying reply.
I love this essay. It’s the only way to win back trust, and with so little of the public trusting politicians, trust is a truly valuable commodity. At the end you say this most clearly:
Any one of [these acknowledgments of policy errors] would **create an uproar among parts of the activist left.** Far from being this strategy’s bug, that should be seen as one of its attractive features.
It’s nearly impossible for a politician to win trust from untrusting voters with mere words. It takes verifiable action. The only such action she can take on the campaign trail is to deliberately “create an uproar among the activist left.” That’s why your recommendation is more than an “attractive feature." It's proof positive of having a spine.
Fortunately, this is easily done politely and while holding progressive principles. But the whole point is to publicly prove that she is willing to stand up and say something everyone knows will offend the far left.
In your next essay on this topic, I would like you to analyze why this winning strategy is almost never taken − Why didn’t Biden take a strong stand even against our fascist Antifa faction in 2020? Miscalculation? Intimidation? Is it proof that our leadership really cannot be trusted, that they will, in fact, let themselves be controlled by the extreme?
Harris and Walz have 40 years of combined public records. Forty years. Other than an occasional and clearly opportunistic political tact - like Walz forcing a radical county DA to drop a very weak murder case against a police officer after the outrage of a fellow officer (Mitchell) being assassinated by a wanted ganglord — there is zero evidence of any moderation in their records. You name the kooky Far Left priority from funding illegal transgender surgery to blow out tax increases to having the IRS go after $600 Venmo transfers to banning Voter ID to Covid snitch lines to social media censorship, Harris and Walz have been lockstep loyal partisan Leftist soldiers. What can Harris possibly say tonight to make us reverse a 40 year record of radicalism ? And why on earth would anyone believe her ? We are not talking Jared Polis or Kristen Sinema here with real evidence of moderation. These are both hard core ideologues going on 4 decades. In days of yore, any attempts to feign moderation would be laughed off.
Personally I don’t want her to take your advice because I do not want her as President in any circumstances. She is an opportunist, a liar and an incompetent. Her party is being captured by extremists including Islamic terrorists.
That does not mean I support Trump but I do think he will be good for the economy and international affairs. We also need urgent action to roll back DEI and the radical school of trans ideology, including the brainwashing and sterilization of schoolchildren.
So Trump is the only option.
In the 2020 primaries, Harris got so few votes you could count them on one hand. After multiple amputations. That is not my line. I got it from Bill Maher. Biden should have withdrawn from the 2024 race back in 2023 allowing the normal Democratic primary process. Harris would have been part of that. Would she have done any better than 2020? Probably not.
Bill Clinton did what you are suggesting in his presidential campaign when he had his "Sister Souljah moment" . Harris will likely lose badly without at least one and probably several of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment
I agree, and especially like this comment because it's pithy and concrete at the same time. And it actually proves something. I can be done and it can work.
"We are fighting for an inclusive America in which your gender and the color of your skin does not determine your place in society, your opportunities in life—or which Zoom call you’re invited to,”
Minor quibble. The word Mr. Mounk was looking for here was sex, not "gender." The former is real. "Gender" is a pernicious philosophical construct with no scientific basis. It has no business supplanting the term "sex".
Let's get beyond the policy issues. Harris has to tell us how she would lead the nation, how she would govern, how she would get things done. I believe that most of the electorate does not want to have four more years of a Trump administration and the chaos it would bring, but we do not know what a Harris administration would bring.
“Kamala Harris is on track to lose the election.” How can you be so sure?
There are many unknown unknowns in this election. Turnout and the ground game may play a critical role. Politics is a business. Look under the hood at the mechanics of the race.
I think you're missing the main point. It's still the economy. That's what's most important to most people and that''s where Trump has a very big edge––13 points in the NYT poll.
Harris should attack Trump's inflationary and gift- to-the-rich budget AND she should distance herself from Biden's inflationary overshoot on stimulus and say she's learned from that mistake. Biden is blamed, right or wrong, for the inflation, and Harris really needs separation from that.
The Democrat projection that candidates just need to shape shift to get the votes is freakin' weird give the youth demand for more authenticity in everything they consume.