How aristocratic it all sounds, if only in a playground, papier-mâché sense. The language of the estates, the “crowning,” the “coronation,” words repurposed for republican politics, is much in evidence with Kamala Harris, who is all but guaranteed formal nomination at the Democratic Party Convention as US presidential candidate. She has now secured the necessary votes from Democratic delegates, without running a single primary, let alone engaging any rival contenders in her party. She has also garnered support despite her abysmal efforts to secure presidential nomination in 2020.
Her tenure as Vice President has been far from glorious, a point she is not entirely blameworthy for given the generally titular nature of the role, “not worth,” as John Nance Garner famously opined, “a bucket of warm piss.” While muddled and vapid musings at the high end of US politics is nothing new – George W. Bush demonstrated that becoming president is not contingent on lexical accuracy let alone rhetorical fluency – Harris has proffered a fair share of awful, and repetitive musings. “We have the ability to see what can be, unburdened by what has been, and then to make the possible actually happen.” And the platoons of the banal cheered.
Harris is certainly the donor’s newly minted candidate, which does much to suggest how anti-democratic the whole process has been. Not that the process of selecting the Democratic nominee for the White House is particularly democratic, given that voters in the primaries do not directly select the candidate so much as delegates who will cast their votes for the figure at the National Convention. Having switched their favours from the ageing and increasingly frail Joe Biden, the monetary approval of the donor base was well signalled by the speedy addition of US$81 million in less than 24 hours. (Last month, the Harris campaign raised a total of US$310 million.)
The idea of a valid contest within the party has well withered on the vine, adding even more succour to the authoritarian varnish Harris’ critics identify as critical. The sycophantic celebration of her presumptive nominee status, offering nothing by way of sustained critique of this pseudo-coronation process, adds even more of a gloss in that regard. The National Review’s Dan McLaughlin is unsparing on this point. As California Attorney General, Harris “was a dangerous authoritarian with an unlimited appetite for power who displayed contempt for the Constitution and no regard for the rights, dignity, faith or reputations of anyone in her way.”
In her failed attempt to secure the 2020 Democratic nomination, she threatened a range of executive orders that would most likely have been felled by the justices of the Supreme Court. However appealing it would have been to the gun control lobby in terms of logic and sense, a ban on assault weapons was top of the list. She also proposed removing Congressional scrutiny of immigration through a generous use of executive orders, hardly in keeping with the spirit of the elected chamber. For someone keen to mark out the illiberal tendencies of Donald Trump and his imperial inclinations, her resume in this regard is conspicuously streaky.
Such a patchy record, notably during her Vice Presidential stint, would certainly explain the initial reluctance – and reticence – of former President Barack Obama in purchasing tickets for the Harris love train. While any unattributed sources run in The New York Post should be treated with silver tongs, aired suspicions can still be useful. Obama, according to The Post’s source, was “very upset” by Biden’s immediate endorsement of Harris “because he knows she can’t win.” He knew “she’s just incompetent – the border czar who never visited the border, saying that all migrants should have health insurance. She cannot navigate the landmines that are ahead of her.”
This “source” certainly sounds conveniently primed and rehearsed on various talking points that will chime with the MAGA crowd. Obama, thus ventriloquised, is supposed to have said that Harris “can’t debate. She’s going to put her foot in her mouth about Israel, Palestine, Ukraine. She’s going to say something really stupid.”
Even if half-true, the comments would point to the need to have some form of contest, one possible were the Democratic Convention to be an open one. In such circumstances, the challenging candidate would require the signatures of 300 delegates to get their name included in a roll-call vote. The majority winning the votes of all available delegates would thereby secure the nomination. As things have turned out, Harris has already reached the 2,350 delegate threshold of the 4,000 available via a virtual roll call.
Without delving too much into inscrutable tealeaves, this might have appeared on Obama’s political radar as a possibility, opening the prospects for any number of candidates who are now shaping up to become a running mate for Harris. An open nomination process is also reported to have interested former House speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
The New York Times, that reliable organ of establishment politics and anti-Trump mania, has also aired the view that the Democratic Party, in not endorsing a competitive process, had adopted “the playbook of ruling parties in authoritarian states.” From the top, the choice has been dictated; the rank and file had to accordingly “fall in line and clap enthusiastically.” The “manifest weaknesses” of Harris – her unpopularity, her poor campaigning, her abysmal management and tendency towards favouritism, her “penchant for excruciating banality,” and her Bay Area standing – were to be religiously ignored.
Whatever his reservations, the Democratic Party machine eventually proved powerful enough to sway Obama, and his wife, Michelle. In an emetic video posted on July 26, Harris is shown accepting a joint phone call from the former first couple at a suitably choreographed point as she walks backstage at an event. “We called to say Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.” The Harris papier-mâché coronation to the Democratic National Convention starting on August 19 gathers pace.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Well thank goodness for Trump then.
Sounds like an Orwellian GOP whine?
‘The New York Times, that reliable organ of establishment politics and anti-Trump mania’
Really? Maybe the editorial board is anti-Trump, running cover for the anti-Biden focus vs suboptimal polling of the conservative Catholic Siena College and a campaign of subscribers cancelling due to the anti-Biden Dems line.
Regardless of whether the process was marred, or if it were to be conducted again with due processes applied, Kamala Harris would/will still be the Democrat candidate.
How could they change it now?
Kamala is leading in the polls and from all accounts has Trump in panic mode.
Sure, there are other suitable candidates and any one of them could be the “best”. Kamala belongs in that group.
She’s the chosen one. Geez I hope she kicks Trump’s arse.
As the Bushes, Senior and Junior and the odious Trump showed, the Presidency can be held by a person with fewer qualities than those most people would regard as pre-requisites so who is to say Kamala Harris, even carrying all the apparently negative baggage referenced by Binoy can’t do a better job than them. She would/will certainly do a better job than Trump. As President she would – we hope- have a better class of advisor than at present, or in the past.
As we all know America’s democracy is mostly a sham anyway given the way the electoral college and other aspects work. It all comes down to money mostly. Given the money Harris has raised in a comparatively short time it certainly seems like a lot of people would like to see her win.
And no matter how disparaging you, Binoy, or the sainted Barack and Michelle are about her, Harris must be streets ahead preferable to the orange bombast.
wow, i cant beleive what i am reading. What cynicism, what hate i feel.
She is a woman and a black Indian. She has been a prosecutor and VP. What the fuck does she need to do to get accredited?
Nobody on the republican side can match her . For everyone’s sake, we need the republicans to get obliterated. Force them to actually be a responsible party, not a maga cult play thing. For democracy to survive in the USA, they do need a shake up at the top. Some of their ideology needs to come face to face with reality.
The new J.D. Vance movie trailer:
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1819496130792857627
Surely outside observers, disgusted at USA blustering decline, are hoping for some respite, improvement, balance, and only a Harris victory can offer some hope. This morning, via news radio, this brimmimg bedpan of brownies named Vance was raving and stirring and dragging everything down below imbecile level. The vacuum of policy known as the Republican Party (party? Herd of Swine? ) cannot offer any thinking voter a path to social bettermant, economic intelligence, military prudence, political expertise. The USA is bummed, buggered, bashed and bruised, all by itself!! The now forgotten and overlooked Biden has at least presided over better figures for the nation, more broadly spread. Trump was and is a pustule, a chronic itch, a pestilence, a plague, a poxed pretender.., and only fools (there are so many) will not see the filth. We here should detach ourselves from USA related commitments, treaties, agreements, deals, for basic sanity.
the sub narratve is that the Democrats are not all pure of heart and wont progress the country in any direction.
Its a very narrow view of how democracy works. Its almost saying that at least Trump will change things.
Its just an insane proposition to even consider. Its giving Trump an element of legitimacy that just isnt justified.
Americans need to vote strategic rather than the here and now. A maga victory will lead to revolution in america.
Thats not just words, look at the 2025 project and what they have plans to do.
I say strategic because change has to come from the top. By constantly voting for narcissists, what are you left with? Narcissists.
In some ways Trumps first stint as Pres showed what his hands on the levers would do. I do believe the Democrats have shifted slightly away from a free for all country. They are slightly more compassionate than a generation ago. And thats the trend they need to encourage. When your slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan, it will take a few cycles to come back to sanity.
I am amazed that any sensible AIMN readers would think that voting for Trumpery was anything other than the worst possible outcome since the Reichstag fire in 1933. Something in the state of USA (United States of Apartheid) is terribly wrong when a registered voter in that deliberately controlled farce called ”American democracy” is prohibited from being employed by the government, but may be elected as POTUS.
Now we have the Republicans with the MAGA cult electing the oldest candidate with the additional benefits of being a convicted felon, an adulterous womanising con-man with few if any saving graces.
The western world needs Kamala Harris to win the 2024 election for POTUS.
Why is Dr Kampmark so anti-Dem, and does he really think that somehow Trump and the Republicans would be better for USAnia (and the rest of the world)?
I’ve lost count of the number of lefty contacts in the USA who are still pissed off at what the Dems did to Bernie Sanders in 2016.
The world is a worse place because of it.
They haven’t forgotten.
They didn’t vote for Trump … they just didn’t vote.
Idiots.
PS: I also know a fair share of MAGAts who did vote for Trump.
They are also idiots, but bigger ones.
It’s always interesting that this author takes great pain to identify every flaw in imperfect democracies, while giving context and cover to autocratic regimes.
Nonetheless, Kamala Harris is a good candidate, she is thoughtful, lacks overt ego driven ambition and will hopefully defeat the worst politician in living memory.
With you, AC.
With Dr Kampmark:
He is very carefully warning the uninitiated thinking that Harris is a silver bullet for troubled times. She is still within the same Establishment that caused Gaza. She is no worse than Biden or Trump, but I think folk will find she is ineffectual, after Albanese.
Dutton and Trump are blatant, so the centre moved a little quicker this time, but it is only a subtle botox for a reprobate system
When it comes to the prisoner swap negotiated by the Biden team, this is what Trump had to say :
“I’d like to congratulate Vladimir Putin for having made yet another great deal.”
Kamala Harris may not be everything that the US needs right now but at least she is not out to Make Russia Great Again !
I’m not sure why Binoy is holding Obama out as wise, but now hesitant for Kamala for (Binoy’s mysterious) good reason. Obama was popular (for a while) but pissweak in the end, not able to stand up against the despot-seeking corporations. He didn’t have the requisite background or skills or resolve to negotiate / insist on change. Indeed the only one with the mettle was Bernie, but the Dems wriggled him out by smothering him with powder-puff bs opting for Clinton II (fem) – she didn’t have the heft. Maybe after Trump I, the Dems learned a lesson – you have to take on the Corp Establishment, they’re ruinous. Biden did a great job under inordinately difficult circumstances, although he didn’t seem to rein in the NE Military industrials far enough to stem the imbroglio in the ME – maybe it has to do with his uncompromising catholicism?
Anyway, for me, it seems Biden knew what he would do, and has done it in anointing Kamala, although I suspect it was planned (for a while) as happened, to trap Trump and the GOP.
To me, Kamala’s non-corp background and advocacy for women and children, along with her prosecutorial determination, wit and foreign relations exposure will more than likely bring a far more considered presidency that the labile chameleon kleptocracy of Trump who seeks to entrench theocratic plutocracy into the feeble GOP, and the country as a whole.
When a king dies or abdicates a new king is selected according to a line of succession.
The same thing happens in the USA with its president, who is first in line to stand as the nominated party candidate, second is the vice president. So if something happened to Kamala Harris her successor would be selected from that line. All these people have been vetted already by their party. The presidential election process in the USA is a long lengthy vetting process (they don’t want what they regard as the wrong types winning office), so with no time to vett a new candidate they resort to the line of succession. Thus instant Kamala for the Democratic Presidential nominee.
This is not going to make The Donald happy:
@4.59AEST
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/aug/05/kamala-harris-vp-announcement-running-mate-election-updates
How, HOW DARE, the judges that he put in place do this to him!
The Donald is not about to upset an obscenely rich man, who is as a big a loony as he is, funneling millions of dollars into his campaign.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/trump-endorses-electric-vehicles-elon-musk
Attention to: Services Australia and ACOSS
Amanda Rishworth and Cassandra Goldie,
For transparency and accountability, you have to publish the rules of 2 debt schemes I reported to you. Both of the schemes affect payments of welfare recipients but none of them mentioned in any government documents available to the public.
Scheme #1. Fake Review scheme (or whatever you call it). Instead of a formal review decision, Services Australia provided me with an objection letter made by an anonymous “delegate or authorised officer”. The initial decision was never legally changed as no formal review was conducted.
Scheme #2. Administered by Family Assistance Office. Their computer system is set up to issue debt notices for whole Rent assistance payments if a parent was ineligible for Family Tax Benefit. So, if a parent was not eligible for FTB-dependent 15% of rent Assistance, FAO automatically issue debt notices for the rest 85% as well (no FTB dependent part of Rent Assistance).
Amanda Rishworth and Cassandra Goldie, you have to acknowledge these schemes and provide the details. The scheme #2 is for parents/caregivers. What about the scheme #1? Do Services Australia apply it on all cohorts of welfare recipients? Any exemption for the most vulnerable (people with disabilities, aged pensioners, etc)? All this information must be available to the public.
Amanda Rishworth and Cassandra Goldie, you have to provide information regarding these schemes.