Political sins and partisan hubris: The (expected) case of Kamala Harris
by Santiago Bedoya Pardo
Hubris (in ancient Greek ὕβρις, hýbris): Concept that can be translated as “arrogance, arrogance, insolence, arrogance, outrage, debauchery or excessiveness.”
Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. This is a reality that will have gone around the world a number of times by the time this article is published, along with the fact that his party has managed to take the majority of the seats in the senate of said country, in addition to, at the time of drafting, to be on the verge of also winning a majority in the House of Representatives.
As they say in the world of American politics, Trump and the GOP (Republican Party) would have achieved the Republican trifecta in Washington. The Democrats, on the other hand, lost the ground gained in 2020, after a dramatic year that included the sudden and forced departure of President Joe Biden from the electoral race, being replaced by Vice President Kamala Harris.
Harris' loss has been particularly hard on Democrats, who faced worse numbers than those seen during the 2016 race, when Hillary Clinton's defeat put Donald Trump in the White House for the first time. This defeat, however, has not only been costly in the political sphere, but also in the financial sphere. Forbes magazine has estimated that the Harris campaign managed to raise about USD 997.2 million (versus the USD 388 million raised by the Trump campaign).
However, Harris' battle was always an uphill battle. Throughout her 107 days of campaign, her advisors sought to portray the current Vice President as a candidate for change, capable of turning the ship of the American state towards a better port. However, this was, almost from the beginning, an impossible mission. Not only did she face the liability of being second in command of an unpopular government (according to CNN's exit poll, Biden faces 59% disapproval), but as veteran public opinion researcher Frank Luntz proved in a “ focus group” of undecided voters immediately before the election, the public did not know who Harris was, or what she represented. Some of those present characterized it as “confusing,” others as a “mystery.” There were even those who called it “false,” and there were also those who said that they simply “didn't know what it represented.” Harris' character was always nebulous, a supposedly miraculous product of elusive description. always nebulous, a supposed miracle product of elusive description.
This was the first major avoidable sin of the Harris campaign. However, holding the Vice President directly responsible poses certain complications. Is it your fault for not being able to develop your own character characterization? Is it Joe Biden's fault for not giving him a greater role within his government? Is it the fault of the alleged racism and misogyny that dozens of Democratic analysts and strategists denounce today?
In my opinion, the answer exists somewhere between the first two questions. The vice presidency of the United States is a strange position, devoid of real responsibilities with a limited number of exceptions (presidency of the Senate de jure, represent the president in his absence and, most obviously, be ready to assume the presidential office in case of any eventuality). de jure, represent the president in his absence and, most obviously, be ready to assume the presidential office in the event of any eventuality).
However, the vice presidential initiative has historically been an interesting force for how certain administrations developed. It is worth highlighting Dick Cheney's role as the foreign policy mastermind of George W. Bush's government, or Al Gore's environmental work during Bill Clinton's government. Harris, unlike Cheney and Gore, never demonstrated such initiative. First strike (as they say in baseball), and as I said before, avoidable.
The second sin that condemned Harris was the platform she chose to adopt. This sin, however, exists in a kind of limbo. What do I mean? According to CNN's exit poll, the issue of abortion was the determining issue of the electoral process for 14% of voters. 14%. Despite this figure, which represents a small portion of the electorate, access to abortion was intrinsic to Harris' campaign. LBGT+ rights were similar.
But why do I say that the avoidability of the adoption of this platform is difficult to define? The reasons are relatively simple. Firstly, abdicating either of these two causes would have meant losing the Democratic base itself, an urban base, with higher education, and relatively young. Second, Harris had to differentiate herself from Trump in a clear and contrasting way. And it is precisely when evaluating this second sin, the adoption of the platform that today they call woke, which demonstrates the arrogance, the disconnection from reality, the hubris of the elites who supported Harris' project. It implies and means sexual liberation, gender experiments, the insistence of unnecessary and inexpiable white guilt, all relevant agenda items for young people, with higher education and relatively comfortable economic situations, of course, but not particularly important or existential. for the bulk of the population. woke up, which demonstrates the arrogance, the disconnection from reality, the hubris of the elites who supported Harris' project. It implies and means sexual liberation, gender experiments, the insistence of unnecessary and inexpiable white guilt, all relevant agenda items for young people, with higher education and relatively comfortable economic situations, of course, but not particularly important or existential. for the bulk of the population.
Referring to Maslow's pyramid of needs, the average voter is not going to give a damn about access to abortion for a woman three states away, in a city they have never seen, if they cannot put food in the table for your family. As I said, defining the seriousness of this sin is complicated, since in theory, nothing would stop the Harris campaign if it decided to optimize other agenda items. In practice, however, the task was impossible, and not only thanks to a party base that can only be described as oligophrenic, but also to the political blindness produced by incumbency in office and the connections that were mistakenly believed to exist. They are forming hand-picked bureaucrats who are left behind to protect the past and promote the future.
Because? For our third and most determining mortal sin – It's the economy, stupid Because? For our third and most determining mortal sin – It’s the economy, stupid . Harris was the electoral face of a government whose approval, as we have already seen, is relatively low, and said low approval is not free. The cost of living for a large number of Americans has gone up, and as expected, they blame those in power, the group that, unfortunately for their presidential ambitions, includes Harris. Aside from the fact that 50+1 of Americans saw Trump as a more capable candidate in the area of economics and finance, there is not much more to add. In the arena of the economy, Harris and company, mainly due to a lack of political strategy, lost the battle before even stepping on the stage of the first presidential debate.
The defeat of the Vice President of the United States cannot be attributed to a single culprit. The demographic realities of her party, combined with a personality too chameleonic to be memorable, guaranteed that both – party and candidate – would always have an arduous task appealing to the average voter, to that electoral center that makes and breaks campaigns. But we also cannot ignore the political liability that Joe Biden's legacy as president entailed, a legacy felt by the electorate in its most sensitive organ – the wallet.
English 
Spanish