Yesterday, descendants of two revered Democratic figures attempted to position Kamala Harris as the symbolic torchbearer for their predecessors’ legacy. Jack Schlossberg, grandson of John F. Kennedy, and Jason Carter, grandson of Jimmy Carter, aligned Harris with their family lineages during the Democratic convention.
Schlossberg, in a seemingly futile attempt to evoke the fervor and patriotic spirit of his granddad JFK, spoke to the assembly on Tuesday. The echo of his grandfather’s passionate rallying cry is, for some mysterious reason, seen as applicable today.
In a confusing attempt at legacy stitching, Harris was touted as an ostensible successor to both Kennedy and Carter’s political heritage. This effort, however, seemed somewhat misplaced when considering the drastically different political climates each of these men faced during their presidencies.
There was a bleak call from Schlossberg for an answer to ‘JFK’s call to action’, invoking the memory of a president who faced his end in Dallas in 1963. Perhaps for Schlossberg, the torch has indeed been passed, but to a new generation that finds it hard to relate to past heroes.
Jason Carter, demonstrating his potential as a career politician and lawyer, adamantly remarked that his nearly centenarian grandfather, currently receiving hospice care, was enthusiastic about casting his ballot for Harris. An unclear stance, given the senior Carter’s health conditions.
Apparently, for Carter, Harris is an embodiment of his grandfather’s values. ‘Kamala Harris carries my grandfather’s legacy,’ he assertively declared. Without going into specifics, he claimed that Harris ‘knows what is right.’ A broad statement that could raise more questions than it answers.
There was also news about Democratic party stalwarts Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attending the convention in Chicago. Unfortunately, the health status of Jimmy Carter prevented him from attending this seemingly significant event in person.
Carter’s descendant soberly noted that, while the former president’s health continued to decline, his spirit remained tenacious. Once again, the effort seemed more about trying to shape Harris’s narrative rather than genuinely addressing party concerns.
Clearly, the Democratic party is attempting to wrap its venerable history around Kamala Harris. Events hosted by Obama and Clinton, however, questioned whether there might be some favoritism at play, keeping Harris under the spotlight rather than presenting a more united party front.
Schlossberg declared Harris as a leader who, like his grandfather, strives for the challenging goals inherent in running a nation. A simplistic comparison that somehow reduced JFK’s considerable political acumen into predictable platitudes.
Harris, painted by Schlossberg as a believer in America like JFK, is a notion that narrowly focuses on Harris’s political views, rather than JFK’s actual record or accomplishments. ‘…we do things not because they are easy but because they are hard,’ he quoted. This statement did not make it immediately evident how Harris is willing to tackle the hard things.
As the curtain fell on the Democratic convention, viewers were left with more questions than answers. The attempt to dovetail Harris with such esteemed predecessors as Kennedy and Carter smacks of manipulation and over-simplification. Would labeling Harris as a successor to JFK and Carter truly inspire confidence among the party faithful and undecided voters?
The Democrats’ orchestrated move to tie Harris with past presidents is a gambit full of uncertainties. It is unsure how positive the public reception will be, and if this truly represents an authentic glimpse into Harris’s potential as a leader, or simply the desperate machinations of a party in search of unified leadership.
To briefly summarize: the day saw the Democrats attempting to shape Kamala Harris’s potential presidential narrative by aligning her with the legacies of JFK and Jimmy Carter. Rather than providing clear, substantive policies or goals, the speeches during the convention focused on image alignment and superficial connections, leaving much to be desired in the way of tangible political substance.