In a peculiar turn of events, Democrats latched onto a seemingly desperate bid for support as the so-called ‘Republicans for Harris’ initiative was launched in August. They were hopeful to net GOP endorsements, like those of figures such as ex-Rep. Liz Cheney and then former Sen. Jeff Flake. This desperate act of reaching out demonstrated their yearning for any sort of validation, raising eyebrows amongst many observers.
Around a month later, Liz Cheney caused a bossom of chatter with her improbably public endorsement of Harris. As though timing his cue, Jeff Flake, too, declared his support, a few weeks after Cheney. Instead of commenting on his rather unconventional decision, Flake mentioned his past service alongside Kamala in the Senate and Tim in the House, attempting to justify this surprising break from party lines.
Flake, who labelled himself as a ‘conservative Republican’, went on to urge fellow Republicans to follow in his unconventional political footprints. Arguing this paradoxical statement, he insinuated that his decision was somehow embedded in conservativism, as a move of ‘putting country over party’—a traditionalist’s standpoint, no doubt. Yet, the irony in his statements was apparent as he endorsed a candidate from a party that typically prides itself on contrarian positions to conservatism.
Recently concluding his stint as the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Flake didn’t simply air his controversial endorsement through video platforms; he also showed up on national television to elaborate on his point of view—mostly choosing to deride his party’s candidate. Countering the Republican belief in the rule of law, he attempted to paint an unfavorable picture of a nominee unreconciled with election results—a thinly veiled jab that didn’t resonate with most conservatives who have different believes.
In less than a week, another surprising endorsement surfaced for the incumbent Democratic vice president from Nancy Kassebaum, a former GOP Senator from Kansas. Following this, a collection of Republicans associated with Nikki Haley’s presidential campaign, alongside three ex-chairs of the Maine Republican Party, also chose to side with Harris. These endorsements felt as unnatural as they were, given these figures’ associations with Republicanism.
This series of unexpected endorsements continued with the support of past GOP governors, lawmakers, cabinet secretaries, and even White House staffers—a curious spectacle, indeed. Intriguingly, most of these support notes came from individuals who had no current influential capacities, but their affiliation to Republicanism caused a stir.
But there’s a catch to this situation that observers have discerned. The euphoria over Harris’ apparent GOP support base comes with a stark truth—it consists only of ‘former’ members. Undeniably, Harris lacks crucial endorsements from any GOP members presently serving in Congress.
As the elections loom, speculation revolve around whether this deficit of support from current GOP members will change. It’s a tricky question that the Democrats continue grappling with, trying to interpret each silence and utterance from the Republican side.
An ex-GOP strategist argued that mere refusal to support a candidate or choosing to vote for an off-ballot personality isn’t morally or politically fitting. Asserting this, however, seemed ironic. While rejection might not be a sign of courage, it also isn’t brave to endorse the opponent—immediate or potential, especially with an open and public endorsement.
Liz Cheney echoed similar sentiments, making some disputable statements about the importance of voting. Cheney’s refusal to entertain the idea of writing in candidates’ names, particularly in swing states, spotlighted her belief in the gravitas of the situation. She encouraged voting for ‘the other candidate’, implying a sense of bleak inevitability rather than heartfelt endorsement.
Meanwhile, the spotlight remained on the retreating Sen. Mitt Romney, who also dismissed the notion of supporting a certain candidate. Resisting the pressure to explicitly endorse the opposition, he maintained a stoic stance, stating, ‘People know where I stand on the present president, and that’s enough’.
However, it’s worth noting that simply expressing dissatisfaction with a candidate doesn’t necessarily equate to endorsing their rival. A fundamental understanding of this nuanced dynamic seems to be lacking among those who are surprisingly endorsing candidates across party lines.
Many mainstream political voices from both ends of the aisle believe it’s essential to move beyond mere displeasure with one’s own party’s candidate, with some arguing this isn’t enough to guarantee a conscious switch of political loyalties. Though these high-profile endorsements may initially seem promising for Harris, their weight and true impact remain largely questionable.
In conclusion, while a motley crew of ‘former’ GOP members has been rallying around Harris, it’s essential to remember these are not indicative of broad-based GOP backing. HPotentially, these outlier endorsements could create an illusion of support, yet the true sentiment among serving Republicans remains largely undeclared.