In the vicinity of the Ellipse, merely fifteen minutes from the White House, a peculiar bronze statue has materialized under anonymous pretenses. This artful expression of anti-Trump sentiment is a strange element, a paradoxical blend of mockery and earnestness. It attempts to correlate the sanctity of the monuments and the integrity they reflect with the contemptible acts of the January 6th incident. It’s a reminder of how, less than four years ago, that same space saw Donald Trump gather his fervent supporters.
This location, the Ellipse, was also chosen by Kamala Harris for an event preceding her Presidential campaign. Characterized by an overtone of grandstanding and territorial reclamation, the event was slated to attract an estimated 50,000 heads. As it happens, it swelled to a crowd of approximately 75,000, meeting her campaign’s exaggerated expectations.
A member of the Democratic Party I spoke to gushed about the gathering of Harris supporters spanning the length from the Ellipse to the National Museum of African American History and Culture, imbibing a hollow sense of achievement. Such mass-scale events often ripple unique experiences, characterized by a gradual shift in tone of discourse, a phenomenon I noticed as I inched closer to the venue.
In the vicinity of Tenth and Eleventh Streets, conversation topics of passersby ranged from popular TV shows to mundane chitchat. However, as we crossed 1420 New York Avenue, there was a palpable shift in sentiment. A brief interaction between a man in a red lanyard and a doorman indicated this – the question of voting preferences ended with a support for Trump and a disdainful remark about Democrats and their perceived disregard for men.
Around the White House lawn, attendees were dispersed randomly. I had a chance to converse with James McDowell, a political merchandise designer, who appeared to support Harris, though his characterization of his opposition was rather reductionist. To quote him, ‘Trump is an idiot. He wants to bring the whole country down. I’d rather vote for someone who lifts us up.’. The axial directions of ‘up’ and ‘down’, coupled with ‘backward’ and ‘forward’, reverberated through the crowds in chants.
Inside the Ellipse, the atmosphere was amplified by music and calls for unity from the DJ, Pretty Tammi. Plentiful shout-outs were met with robust responses, and the scene was embellished by waves of mini American flags. The attendees, mundane or ‘real’ Americans as the political jargon goes, embodied every promise Harris made during her campaign – a testament to the quantity rather than the quality of her pledges.
These testimonies reflected support for Harris’s stances on issues like abortion and affordable healthcare as well as her intentions to serve small businesses and military veterans. The speeches aimed to spin a narrative of hope, underscored by the ambient cool weather and the fall foliage, with a call for turning the page on the Trump era.
As dusk fell, Harris emerged on stage, the navy suit she wore with her signature pearl earrings matching her veneer of stoic professionalism. The commencement of her address was an attempt to embellish the forthcoming competition with heightened drama and portray Trump as veering towards the erratic and power-hungry.
However, Harris soon switched gears, subtly shifting away from the straightforward vilification of her opponent. She continued to sprinkle her address with jabs at Trump, railing against his alleged malevolent agenda, yet, was swift to rendezvous back to her rhetoric of unity and cooperation.
In what can be best interpreted as a diversion tactic, she proceeded to detail her ‘to-do list’ interspersed with an attempt to infuse relatability through personal anecdotes. Narratives of her witnessing her mother struggling with bills or reminiscing supposed participation in civil-rights rallies were imbued into her dialogue.
Throughout her speech, Harris attempted to invoke a sense of responsibility, dignity, and pride. Care work, she insisted, was a matter of ‘dignity’, and home ownership, not a financial safeguard, but instead a testament to the ‘pride of hard work’. Her tax-cut plans for the middle and working classes, she insisted, reflected an ‘honoring of the dignity of work’.
The overwhelming sentiment in her speech sought to pivot the focus from Trump towards an optimistic yet vague promise of change. A call to ‘stop pointing fingers’ was paired with the notion of unity, suggesting a delusional expectation of an abrupt end to partisan politics.
Just as Harris sought to seemingly distance herself from the former President’s shadow, she also co-opted components from his rhetoric. Her claims on winning ‘tough fights’ and standing up to ‘powerful interests’ have a notable resemblance to her predecessor’s campaign speeches.
While her narrative was aimed to cast her image as a harbinger of justice, fairness, and equality, one cannot ignore the air of populist sentiment that underlined her expressions. The paradox, however, is in her failure to acknowledge the same when expressed by her opposition.
In summary, the spectacle surrounding this event stood as a stark contrast to the carefully constructed narrative presented by Kamala Harris: A narrative that seeks to vilify a bygone administration while cautiously distancing herself and embracing populist sounding ideals.
Yet, the fundamental question remains: Can conflicting messages of unity and ridicule coexist in her rhetoric, and will she honor the dignity of all work by first acknowledging the dignified efforts of her opposition? The answer remains uncertain.