As Democrats gather in Chicago, it is difficult to escape the feeling that something or someone is missing.
The first thing would be any sort of discussion about what Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have done in the past or plan to do if they win the election. Since the departure of Joe Biden, who appears to have believed he represented the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt just as sycophants like Michael Beschloss told him, a sense of realism appears to have set in among Democrats that the Biden-Harris record – as well as the policies of the entire party – are immensely unpopular.
That is why Kamala Harris and her party have very little interest in discussing what they will do, especially if it requires them to weigh trade-offs or commit to anything other than promising everyone in sight access to the magical money tree Harris seems to have discovered.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have been nominated. Joe Biden got polite applause, as is the norm for the Democratic Party’s fading grandfather before he was sent back to the nursing home that in this instance is the White House. Hillary Clinton performed like an aged band that can’t give up on the hope of one more tour.
By the end of the convention, a host of party grandees will have come on stage to testify to the wisdom, generosity, and statesmanship of a vice president whom they openly mocked until a month ago, and a governor whose presence is a testament to their impotence. They will hate every moment of it, which is why they will pivot to what Harris, Walz, and their audience really want to talk about: Donald Trump.
In Chicago this week, Trump is the real star of the show, but not in the way he has been in the past. If there is one difference between the Biden and post-Biden Democrat Party, it is in the way they talk about Donald Trump. Biden saw him as a personal rival. Harris, Walz, and their managers see him as a celebrity.
Joe Biden wanted to talk about Donald Trump. He just wanted to talk about Project 2025, abortion, “our democracy,” Putin, and lawfare. Harris occasionally makes allusions to these, part of her pitch to the MSNBC crowd, but it is hard to miss how broadly they have faded from the lexicon.
Instead, Harris’s campaign press releases and social media accounts have taken on the approach of a stalker, providing non-stop commentary on the latest developments regarding Donald Trump – where he is campaigning, how he is campaigning, and, in recent weeks, alleging he is not campaigning enough. It is all quite odd.
Make no mistake, however, it is also strategic. If there is one insight powering the Harris-Walz campaign, it is that Donald Trump is and remains the main character of U.S. politics. Every other character is defined in relation to him. Politics is divided between those who follow him because they support him and those who follow him because they can’t stand him.
Joe Biden’s failure to grasp this essential truth crippled his efforts and ultimately doomed his campaign. Joe Biden genuinely believed that he, rather than money, institutions, and COVID-19, defeated Donald Trump in 2020. He drew the erroneous conclusion that he could go head-to-head with his nemesis.
For four years Joe Biden sought to reduce American politics to a duel between himself and Trump, believing, when it came down to it, that he would win such a fight. In the process, he ignored inflation and the economy in favor of abstractions such as “democracy” and turned geopolitics into an extension of the domestic dual between himself and Trump that existed only within his head.
In the end, this belief, which appears to be one of the few principles Joe Biden clung to without the slightest moment of doubt, led him onto the debate stage in Atlanta and proved to be his undoing.
Kamala Harris and her handlers, perhaps stung by the fiasco of her 2020 primary campaign, do not intend to even try to make Kamala the star of the show. Not only would it be futile to try and compete with Donald Trump’s star power, but why would they even want to? Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden deluded themselves into believing that their policies were in fact popular and that if they managed to shift the discussion from the field of narrative, where Donald Trump’s charisma gave him an innate advantage, to policy, they would win. Biden persevered in this path, despite consistent polling data indicating most voters believed Donald Trump had done a better job as president, and would do a better job on the border, economy, and foreign policy.
Harris and the post-Biden Democratic establishment appear unburdened by such illusions. There is no better example of the shameless efforts to rewrite history than the campaign to erase Kamala Harris’s record as border czar. It is an indication that the Harris-Walz campaign realizes that border policy is a liability, and no amount of spin, no level of explanations will make voters change their minds. In fact, the more clearly the Biden-Harris border policy is explained, the less popular it will be.
The same is true of the economy and foreign policy. Joe Biden insisted on contrasting his economic record with Donald Trump in the face of overwhelming evidence the American people preferred Trump’s. He championed his purported support of Ukraine after Russia invaded, and of Israel after Hamas attacked, without considering that doing so merely reminded voters that no one invaded Ukraine or started a war in Gaza under Donald Trump.
In this approach, Harris-Walz 2024 is more reminiscent of Obama-Biden 2012 than of Clinton or Biden’s efforts in 2016 and 2020, respectively. Barack Obama won reelection in 2012 because, unlike Hillary Clinton in 2016, he was under no illusions that his presidency was viewed as anything other than a disappointment.
Whereas Hillary Clinton assumed promising to continue the status quo in 2016 would deliver victory, Obama grasped that the more he talked about his record, the less votes he would win. Obamacare may have borne his name, but Barack Obama avoided discussing it. Unlike Biden, who took credit for the spending that caused inflation, Obama avoided discussing his approach to the 2008 financial crisis, instead challenging Mitt Romney to explain what he would have done differently.
Obama instead fought the 2012 election on whether voters liked Mitt Romney or not, targeting his record at Bain, and painting him as a greedy, corporate machine.
Donald Trump is not Mitt Romney, but Harris and her team seem to have realized they have the same problem Obama did. They cannot defend their record. So, rather than seeking to contrast records or policy platforms, they want to make the election about Donald Trump in isolation. They will call him old, and unstable, and in effect suggest that even if voters want the Donald Trump of 2019 back, they cannot have him.
This is a campaign waged from a position of weakness. But the difference between Harris-Walz 2024 and Biden-Harris 2024 is that Harris-Walz 2024 are aware they are operating from a position of weakness and, like Obama in 2012, are operating accordingly.
An insult-fest negates Donald Trump’s greatest strength, which is not, contrary to what has perhaps been the case before, his comic timing, but his successful record in office. It allows Democrats to neutralize Biden’s unpopularity and reset the election so that their overwhelming financial and institutional advantages can prove decisive. It not only allows Democrats to avoid policy, but it will then drive the media to question Republicans about the attacks, preventing them from discussing policy as well.
A DNC focused on Colbert-tier roasts of Donald Trump may demean our nation, but it is smart politics for the Democrats in 2024 – which is why the GOP needs to avoid being drawn in and get back to the winning strategy of contrasting policies and records.
Walter Samuel is the pseudonym of a prolific international affairs writer and academic. He has worked in Washington as well as in London and Asia, and holds a Doctorate in International History.
