There’s talk in the air of Harris being a “movement” politician (I’ll get into what that is), of being a “hinge of history,” according to a Politico article here.
That’s a concept usually associated with the term “transformative leader.” The reality on the ground, Politico reminds us, is Harris was slotted into the presidential nomination at the last possible minute as “an emergency alternative” to Biden.
Skeptics remind us she could lose, in which case she’ll merely be an also-ran in history books. They also tell us she was a failed candidate in 2020, and stumbled through “an uneven few years as Biden’s vice president.”
But does that rule out Harris being a transformative movement leader? Absolutely not. That’s because politicians don’t choose to lead movements; a moment and movement chooses them.
That’s true of Trump; nobody will seriously argue MAGA isn’t a movement, which is bigger than support for a candidate. He was able, as a rank political novice with no qualifications to govern, to beat a veteran politician in 2016 because the movement propelled him to the political forefront.
First, a definition. Let’s begin with this: Politico says, “The word is conceptually slippery — easily deployed by fervid supporters and just as easily deflated by skeptics.” Still, it has a meaning.
I’ve already said a movement is bigger than support for a candidate; Politico says it’s “more than a mere political campaign.” Most political campaigns are not movements. But what, then, is a movement? Politico says,
“A political movement is something … that taps into an emerging zeitgeist, that manages to transcend traditional political issues and alliances, that … ultimately engenders some history-shifting consequence. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt built the legislative legacy that defined the better part of the 20th century. Republican Ronald Reagan harnessed the conservative movement and remade his party in his image. Those weren’t just political campaigns. Those, most would agree, are political movements.”
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) says, “A big part of it is being able to get into the culture, break into the culture, and you can bridge that gap between cool and consciousness, and those lines are blurred between pop culture and the campaign. Then you have a movement candidate.”
Those are all signs of a candidate ascending to leadership of a movement, but what is a movement? What does it consist of? It’s a force, drawing energy from enthusiasm, pushing culture, politics, and society in a new direction.
Scott Jennings, a GOP talking head who formerly worked for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), scoffed at the enthusiasm propelling Kamala Harris to political stardom (and, potentially, political power). “I think these people are high on their own supply” of enthusiasm, he said. “Also, what does she stand for? She’s slightly younger than Joe Biden. That’s what she stands for?” Other GOP critics panned her policies, or claimed she didn’t have any, as you’d expect from them.
They’re missing the point. A movement leader doesn’t need policies, and a movement doesn’t primarily consist of policies. Obama’s “Hope and Change” had the potential to become a movement, but failed to jell into one. It was followed by Trump and MAGA.
Trump is the leader of a movement. Despite having lost elections in 2018, 2020, and 2022, MAGA is still a change force in American politics, that doesn’t depend on Trump for its energy. Even as he falters physically and mentally, MAGA rolls along; and if it lost its leader, Vance or someone else could step in.
Is the moment ripe for a movement on the other side? Yes. Biden was anything but a movement leader. He was a stopgap candidate tapped by his party to unseat Trump, block MAGA, and preserve the established way of government. Harris could easily fall into that role, too; but that’s not up to her. If a movement is brewing, and taps her as its leader, she’ll be swept along by the movement much as FDR was in his time, and Trump is now.
Reagan, to a greater extent than others, created and shaped and controlled his movement. But it’s not necessary for Harris to do that. If the movement is already there, all she has to do is seize the moment ride the wave.
There definitely are signs that a movement exists and she’s doing that. In a separate article here, Politico says she “understands the assignment,” which is “to connect with the American people.” This, Politico says, is what “ultimately separates standout politicians from the rest.” In this respect, Harris is on the right track, because she used her acceptance speech to create this connection, not make policy arguments or promises.
Many things are coming together in the form of a movement to create a wave for Harris to ride: “New generation. New global order. Changing national economy. The political and the social are united in the Harris moment,” a veteran Democratic strategist says. “The reversal of Reaganism in total. A return to a war against poverty. The continuation of the Cold War. A fight for Medicare all over again. Returning respect for labor unions,” he said.
But all of those things don’t make a politician transformative. What does? FDR and Reagan became “dominant figures” in American politics. They remade their parties’ coalitions, and changed the overall political landscape. A political movement can do that, and it probably takes one to do that, but political dominance is the measure of whether it has done that.
Harris’s convention speech had the right content, the right tone, and addressed the right audiences to bring a nascent movement into being. She hasn’t eliminated herself as a person to lead it, harness its power, and use it to bring about political change. Right now this looks very possible, but despite the euphoria surrounding her, it’s not inevitable. She still could lose to MAGA, and go into the history books as an als0-ran.
But even if the GOP skeptics are proved right about the outcome, they will still be wrong about the reasons. The power propelling Harris upward in the polls isn’t about her policies. It isn’t about “a unique presidential nominee, a biracial woman with a blended family.” As Politico concludes, it’s about a nation weary of Reaganism, MAGA, and negativity; and wanting change. I agree with that.
Let’s say Harris wins. Obama won, but wasn’t a transformative president, nor was “Hope and Change” a movement. If she’s elected, like Obama she’ll be a trailblazer — the first woman and second president of color — and a breath of fresh air. But if her presidency doesn’t turn a page in American politics, she’ll just be another president in a succession of presidents. But plenty of people, not just Democrats but also journalists, are saying the mood has shifted and something’s in the air.
And that, fundamentally, is what a movement consists of, if a political leader comes along who’s able to harness it.
Related story: Can Harris defeat Trump? Democratic voters didn’t think so four years ago, and party insiders had doubts when they needed a Biden replacement. The polls are giving her supporters hope, and Huffington Post says “she looks pretty darn electable now” (read story here). I think two things have happened: She’s risen to the occasion; and Trump, older and frailer now, isn’t the candidate he was.