Skip to main content

Election Day: The incumbent and the veep

 


Diane and I were talking recently about how the incumbent President, Joseph Biden, has seemed to do relatively little campaigning for his Vice President, Kamala Harris.  We both agree on that observation, but we had different interpretations. 

My initial thought was, "Maybe Joe is grumpy.  Yes, he has supported her and done everything he had to as a party guy, but he was dumped over and may be ticked off."

Diane thought this must be wrong.  The reason is more likely not that he is grumpy about campaigning but that she and her team have decided he is more a liability than an asset on the trail. 

Whatever.  

Looking at this from a broader PoV. Harris is in a familiar position in US presidential history. She cannot seem to be disloyal to the incumbent president whose mantle she has inherited -- nor can she present herself as a mere acolyte. She has to be both her own woman and a loyal party gal. 

It is easy to get this wrong. George H.W. Bush annoyed a number of Reagan admirers by suggesting that his own sort of conservatism was "kinder and gentler" that that of his predecessor. Al Gore tried to be Bill Clinton without the sexual baggage but ended up being Clinton without the charisma and presence. 

Hubert Humphrey -- ah, THERE is a close analogy.  Johnson was deeply unpopular (and in bad health, though the public didn't know it) and decided early on in 1968 that he would spend the balance of the year trying to preserve his administration through the agency of his vice president.

Once the party nomination was secured, though, some of Humphrey's advisors wanted him to resign as VP during the campaign that autumn in order to create politically helpful distance between himself and Johnson.  HHH declined any move so drastic though at the end of September he gave a speech advocating a bombing halt in Vietnam.  Johnson was furious. 

Harris wants to talk up the Biden legacy (mostly infrastructure and support for NATO) and to inherit the support of its friends, while establishing that she is different. Different not just in sex or complexion or even age. Maybe less wedded to Netanyahu -- the 2024 issue most redolent of 1968. 

She must thread the needle. Today's votes will give us an idea of how well or poorly she has done so.

This post, by the way, will be the last reference to the presidential election you will see on this blog this week.  I will see if dust settles a bit.   

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more