In our divided nation, it is difficult to write something that irritates both political sides to the same extent, but Kamala Harris has improbably managed to do it.
The case concerns the viability of the former transport secretary, Pete Buttigieg, for the role of vice-president. In his new book, “107 Days”, the former vice-president Harris said that she considered buttigieg for the position, but decided that, although he would have been perfect if he was a straight white man, his gay being was simply a risk.
“We were already asking a lot of America: accepting a woman, a black woman, a black woman married to a Jewish man,” she wrote. “Some of me meant:” Long, let’s do it. ” But knowing what was at stake, it was too big risk. »»
Opportunistic criticisms on the right have seen it as a clear and simple fanaticism. More thoughtful criticisms on the right have seen it as a by-product of the self-destructive obsession of the Democratic Party for the policy of identity, a system of beliefs in which the party elites took their clues of the progressive left very online and convinced themselves that the American electorate is filled with racists, anti-Semites and homophobic, even from the US electorate Swing voters who obviously imported the most into Harris from an electoral point of view.
The criticisms on the left, including Rachel Maddow, who called the declaration “difficult to hear” when Harris defended it in an interview with MSNBC promoting his book, was naturally grieved that Harris seemed to say fairly clearly that Buttigieg was her first choice, but she opposed her own impulse because he is gay. And this of a democrat!
Bad choice, in our minds, of a campaign which, yes, had little time but which still has too much. Of bad choices, that is to say.
The chosen candidate, the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, did not attract a significant number of voters who were not going to vote for Harris anyway and JD Vance wiped the ground with him during the vice-presidential debate. Buttegieg, a tremendous intellect and a masterful debate, would not have let this happen.
Residues of all kinds of prejudices exist in the extreme parts of the American electorate. So stipulated. But the idea that the Americans in the middle of the road always approach the elections by seeing markers of identity of race, sex or sexuality such as demerites or reasons not to vote for someone is manifestly absurd.
People just don’t think, well, I agree to vote for a black woman married to a Jewish man here, but a gay running mate would be a bridge too far. It’s so non-sensation. On the one hand, there are many Americans in the middle of the road who are gays, Jews, blacks and female themselves, or perhaps the four. Harris seems to think that the entire electorate is made up of nice white males deeply prejudice.
The swing voters are looking for the candidate who, according to them, will best represent their economic and secure interests. They are generally not concerned about most personal questions, because the current occupant of the oval office has manipulated a lot to its advantage. The fastest democrats put the message on this subject, the better for the party.
The faster, the Harris book tour also ends, the better for the party.
Submit a letter, no more than 400 words, to the publisher here or send an e-mail to letters@chicagogne.com.
