As we rapidly approach the impending Election Day, Vice President Kamala Harris finds herself in a challenging position. She must somehow distinguish her prospective presidency from that of Joe Biden while carefully maintaining fealty to the current administration. This is a delicate tightrope, which was clearly visible this past Tuesday when Harris stated, ‘We’re obviously two different people’, but when asked for a single example of Biden’s decisions she disagreed with, she hesitated, stating, ‘There is not a thing that comes to mind.’
In a somewhat ludicrous attempt to distinguish herself, Harris promised she would assign a Republican to her Cabinet. What this indicates is that she lacks such substantial policy differences from Biden that she has to resort to personnel choices to showcase any semblance of distinction. Sadly, Harris has not provided anything substantial to differentiate herself, which prominently signifies a shortage of refreshing ideas in the Democratic Party.
Harris, in her candidature, has mainly built upon her narrative of representing a departure from the leadership of the aging Biden, as well as her Republican adversary, ex-President Donald Trump. However, as the competition tightens against Trump, Harris is reevaluating her rhetoric regarding her superior and her independent direction if she were to secure the presidency.
Harris acts as a symbol of change due to her unique background and age difference in comparison to Biden and Trump. Although being the first Black and South Asian woman nominated for presidential candidacy by a major party is impressive, she may need a stronger narrative around the concept of ‘change’. With Biden’s popularity sinking, it’s crucial for Harris to distance herself from the unfavorable administration.
Harris’ professed loyalty to Biden prevents her from pointing out any flaws in his presidency, even when those flaws are glaringly evident. Even though Biden’s approval ratings remain consistently mediocre, Harris, for some reason, appears hesitant to acknowledge the evident dissatisfaction among the public. Some speculate on what substantial issues she might disagree with Biden on, as unlikely as this seems.
Despite the widespread approval of some parts of Biden’s legislative agenda, like infrastructure and some measures to cut prescription drug costs, signaling divergence in foreign policy could be a risky move amid the ongoing crises. But the fact remains that Biden’s negative image persists among the public, with only about 40% of Americans expressing a somewhat or very favorable view of him. Meanwhile, 55% maintain an unfavorable view, remarkably consistent over the last two years.
Interestingly, Harris’ approval ratings are better than Biden’s, with half of Americans holding a favorable opinion of her, while 44% have an unfavorable view. However, this increased likability may be dependent upon Harris separating herself from the failing Biden administration rather than due to her own personal charm or capability.
Though Harris has proposed a few policies, like a lesser increase to the capital gains tax, that slightly diverge from Biden’s positions, they are merely minor differences. Noticeably, any variation that Harris presents, the Biden administration promptly agrees upon. This signals not only an alarming lack of original thought within the Democratic Party but also the scarcity of genuine policy disagreements between Biden and Harris.
Harris’ inability to articulate a single policy decision that she’d have made differently than Biden led to Trump pouncing on her evasion, rightly calling it disqualifying. Although from the outside it appears consensual, it’s hard to believe that she entirely agrees with Biden’s falter-prone administration so much so that she wouldn’t change anything at all.
The pressure on Harris to present herself as distinct from Biden continues to increase. One Democratic strategist claimed that Biden being ‘an unpopular president in a global anti-incumbent mood’ means that Harris must articulate clear differences in order to resonate with a pool of undecided voters who are not particularly excited about Biden.
It seems, however, that finding that balance is a difficult task for Harris, who is the first vice president in 24 years to have to decide how to differentiate herself from the current leader of her party. Her campaign strategy of keeping Biden at arm’s length on the campaign trail – highlighted by only a single campaign event together – reflects their cautious approach. Despite this, she’s frequently called upon to accompany Biden during crises, adding difficulty to her separation attempt.
Harris’ predicament parallels that of the 2000 Democratic Nominee Al Gore, who faced a similar problem with maintaining the right distance from then-President Bill Clinton after a high-profile scandal. Another example is President Ronald Reagan, who refrained from actively campaigning for his vice president and successor George H.W. Bush in 1988.
As one Republican strategist observed, vice presidents often struggle to separate themselves from the sitting presidents, which could explain why so few of them manage to succeed in their bids for presidency. This provides another obstacle for Harris in her attempt to prove she is a candidate of change.
Notwithstanding, some Democrats argue Harris should maintain close alignment with Biden’s policy positions. However, this seems to be a misguided strategy. If Harris truly wants to represent a ‘new way forward’, then just signaling generational change won’t be sufficient. A focus on the future needs to be coupled with a substantial divergence from Biden’s policies and mistakes.
In conclusion, Harris seems to be grappling not only with Biden’s unpopularity but also with her own inability to clearly articulate how her approach would significantly differ from his. If she continues to tread the line of unyielding loyalty to Biden, she risks associating herself with an unpopular administration and squandering her chance to truly stand out as an exceptional candidate for the presidency.