My co-blogger, James Joyner asks if the coronation of Harris as the presumptive nominee is a good idea or not. I am going to unequivocally state that yes, yes it is.
First, I don’t like the word “coronation” because I think it has the wrong general connotation and is also simply inaccurate. I do not fault James for using it, as that is what the media, writ large, has decided to call an outcome in which Harris faces no real opposition in the process of replacing Biden as the Democratic Party’s choice for nominee. Indeed, I almost used it myself in the title of this post because it is a useful shorthand.
However, as the reader can see above, I went with “consensus” and that is indeed what we are seeing. The word “coronation” connotes royalty and some kind of inherent right to a position regardless of what anyone else thinks or whatever arguments they could make. Quite clearly if there was a significant faction of the Democratic Party that truly thought it could make a case to be the new standard bearer, then we would not have consensus, but instead we would have a fight.
I would say that “coronation” would be the right word if Biden and his faction of the party were strong-arming out another faction to block them from competing and using their power to put Harris on the ballot. But this is not what is happening. What is happening is there is rapid consensus forming around the idea of a Harris-led ticket.
This leads to my second point, both from the point of view of the Democratic Party, but also from the general anti-Trump coalition that includes Never-Trump Republicans and independents, a fight would have been a serious problem. As I have been arguing for some time, one of the major risks of Biden bowing out was that it would cause a public fight within the party (which many in the media seemed to be salivating over, to be honest). Such a fight would have taken the focus off of both Trump and of anything positive about the Democrats. It would also have provided nothing but an avalanche of material for the Trump campaign.
Moreover, given that the exact ideological differences between Harris and Whitmer and Nesom and Shaprio and Whomever are relatively small in the grand scheme of things, what would have been the point?
If one’s goal is to defeat Trump, then the current scenario is the preferred one.
Indeed, I had two main concerns about Biden dropping out from the get-go. The first was that there would be a damaging intra-party fight. That concern appears to be laid to rest and in quick order to my relieve. The second are concerns linked to gender and race and the unfortunate fact that some voters will have trouble voting for a woman of color.
I will also state that I do not think that there is any particular need for candidate selection to have internal democratic mechanisms. This is not because I don’t value democracy! It is because there is no particular reason why a candidate picked by internal democratic means provides either the best candidate in terms of campaigning and most assuredly does not provide one that necessarily does the best job of representing the party.
The goal of nominating a candidate under a party label ought to be a process by which that party provides the voters with a person who is representative of what that party is and who reflects what that party’s label means. That is the way it works in pretty much the rest of the world (with a few exceptions, and even then those exceptions really are not like the US).
Indeed, after years of study and contemplation I have come to see primaries as a major problem (and I once would have argued that primaries were democratic and good because of that–I have a vague recollection of making that argument on a blog, but I can’t recall if it was here or on PoliBlog–or maybe both).
I am reminded of this quote from political scientist E. E. Schattschneider from his 1942 book, Party Government, “Democracy is not to be found in the parties but between the parties.” We need parties to provide voters with clear choices and labels that help voters make choices. It more likely to produce that clarity via candidate selection processes other than primaries.
I think Trump is an apex example of this, insofar at the party itself did not pick Trump. The primary process did and then the party did not transform Trump, Trump transformed the party.
If the nominee matters more than the party, that is telling. While part of this is presidentialization of the party system the primary process just amplifies that affect by several quanta.
On balance I think that because all of us grew up with primaries (for most offices) and have experienced them as integral to presidential nominations since 1972, we think of them as normal and therefore as good. But if the goal is the selection of candidates who are good representatives of their parties so as to provide voters with clear choices, they don’t work so well.
As a bonus, more consensus!
A big shoe drops via Axios: Nancy Pelosi endorses Kamala Harris as Democratic nominee.
And, more:
The Hill: Voto Latino pledges $44M to support Harris.
The Hill: ActBlue rakes in nearly $50 million in 7 hours after Harris campaign launch.
Via Newsweek: Nikki Haley Voters PAC Announces Support for Kamala Harris.
