As we commence the fallout of the so-called ‘Siege of Trumpian Populism: Part Two’, it becomes undeniably radiant that Donald Trump’s grandiose actions and terrifying tariff threats were all a part of his master plan for Project 2025. With Trump reigning supreme over the public discourse, it is only natural to reflect upon the nightmare that was the 2024 election cycle. However, this reflection serves as a tool for Democrats to mug up on seizing the narrative in the public eye. It seems since Obama’s resounding victories, presidential candidates have lost a piece of their personality, laying low to avoid criticism.
In this vein, Kamala Harris might have made a noise in her solitary debate against Trump in September, but the noise seemed to fade into oblivion soon enough. The sight of her disappearing act especially after the debate was indeed baffling. Moreover, her running mate, Tim Walz, who had initially gained visibility by rattling the ‘peculiar’ Republicans on live TV, also seemed to be swallowed by obscurity during the final phase of the campaign.
The campaign of Harris-Walz became a tale of glory that fizzled out too soon. It was marred with the common defect that has been haunting recent Democratic campaigns – a severe risk aversion, especially when it comes to direct engagement with the media or the effective use of social media. These inhibitions seemed to be the downfall of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden’s campaigns too.
In my opinion, the biggest shortcoming of the Democrats isn’t with the candidates themselves but with the upper echelons who seem to control the candidates’ every move. This consultancy class dons an unnecessary protective layer that shields candidates from showing any personal traits. The politically correct approach has made the narrative impersonal and insipid.
The defensive stance taken by Harris’s team, where they chose not to reply to some attacks from the opposition, was another glaring example of this failing strategy. A Democratic strategist boldly pointed out that their campaign should have hit back at Trump’s advertisements in a much more aggressive manner.
Alarmingly, it was noticed that the root cause of this timid approach was fear. ‘Our party is too slow due to fear’, the strategist pointed out bluntly. Future candidates need to rebuff the right-wing’s narrative of their agendas and set the record straight, immediately and assertively.
It was further noted that candidates, thanks to the myriad of social media channels at their disposal, can promptly counter such narratives or actively partake in public discussions. Prompt rebuttals could stop misconceptions from taking hold or even prevent them from forming in the first place.
What binds these three different entities—Clinton, Biden, and Harris—with disparate skill sets and unique disadvantages, is the suffocating consultative culture that curtails any attempt at personality expression. It is the ‘McKinsey-ification’ of Democratic candidates.
As relayed by a seasoned Democratic communications strategist, Stu Loeser, ‘Campaign messaging isn’t merely a step-by-step procedure that resembles a recipe. It is more akin to jazz. Candidates need to be in tune with the rhythm of current events, adding their unique notes into the mix. It’s more Coltrane than cold hard facts.’
The unhealthy obsession with perfect data analysis, the dread of negatives and the need to micromanage everything are some of the problems plaguing the Democratic presidential candidates. It seems that this culture of incessant worrying produces candidates who may have fewer negatives, but struggle to resonate with voters.
This frenzied campaign culture sadly gives rise to candidates who, while mostly avoiding negatives, might lack authenticity, causing a disconnect with voters. This insipidness is not something that can be glossed over. It’s a hurdle that the Democrats must overleap if they are to make any headway in future elections.
Indeed, it’s crucial for campaigns to be rooted in authenticity, in the genuine passions, frustrations, and beliefs of the candidates, rather than succumbing to paralyzing fears or losing oneself in the swampland of data-driven calculations. Democratic candidates need to learn this principle and implement it in their campaigns if they want to reclaim the limelight.
The lesson for Democratic candidates is to break this mold, to resist the inertia that keeps their campaigns clinical and devoid of authentic expression. They must remain engaged, interactive, and responsive, ready to redefine narratives and seize the initiative. Only then will the party manage to rekindle the charisma lost somewhere between numbers and negative fear.