As you have heard by now, Kamala Harris has chosen avuncular Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her vice presidential pick. One immediate reflection is how quickly Walz’s rise to prominence in the veepstakes happened. When I wrote about possible VP prospects two weeks ago, his name wasn’t circulated in many “top picks” lists. Again, this is why you shouldn’t trust any prognostications I make.
Looking at the online reaction, most Democrats and progressives posting about this are somewhere on the scale from satisfied to ecstatic. Harris-leaning Republicans seem somewhere between ok with this and disappointed it wasn’t Shapiro (who they rightfully see and being more conservative). Trump supporters hate the decision, which is their right and makes sense. However, the line some are initially taking is telling. For example:
This line of attack was previewed yesterday by Vice Presidential candidate J. D. Vance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. From The Daily Beast:
Speaking to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt before the announcement on Tuesday, Vance said he would be “stunned” if Harris did not choose Shapiro.
“I think that they will have not picked Shapiro, frankly, out of anti-Semitism in their own caucus and in their own party. I think it’s disgraceful that the Democrats have gotten to this point where it’s even an open conversation, and it is an open conversation,” he told Hewitt.
Again, it’s not unexpected that the Trump campaign and its supporters are already attacking Walz. It’s exactly what they should be doing. But this particular line of attack is unique in so far as all of these people (and others advancing this attack) have all been extremely vocal about DEI and “wokeness” in general.
All of them, at one time or another, have attacked Harris as a DEI selection for Vice President. And yet, they are all staking a position that ultimately argues for a form of DEI: that not picking the one Jewish candidate (out of many candidates) is clearly a sign of anti-semitism. This is a case of going so far in one direction that you end up arguing for the position you publicly reject.
By this thinking, Trump is clearly a racist for not picking Tim Scott (the only Black person he was reportedly considering). Or it means that Trump had a bias against Cubans and Latinos for not picking Marco Rubio. After all, there can be “only one reason” to pass over those far more experienced Senators and Republican party leaders for political neophyte J. D. Vance.
Erickson and Mandel’s positions seem especially out-there given no Republican ticket has featured a Jewish person either (and beyond McCain’s Lieberman hail Mary, I can’t think of a recent case where a Jewish person was considered for the ticket). Then we also have the case that Doug Emhoff, Harris’s husband and the father of her step-children, is Jewish (though according to Donald Trump, he’s a crappy, horrible Jew).
Even speaking as a Harris supporter, there are a lot of policy topics that the Trump campaign and its surrogates could attack Walz on. The fact that one of the first lines of attack is an identity-based one suggests that the campaign continues to think that racism is a winning issue. And that could be for its base. That said, they should also remember that it’s a motivating one for the Democratic base to turn out to vote as well.
[Update 3: Okay, why has it taken me hours to remember that in 2000, Joe Lieberman was the Democratic vice presidential candidate, making him the first and so far only Jewish person on the Presidential ticket? Also, FWIW, current Attorney General Merrit Garland, also is Jewish. And there are other high-ranking Jewish folks in the current administration.
Also, frankly, why did none of our dear commenters “Um… Actually…” me on this one?! ]
[Update 2: Best response I have seen so far to this line of thinking via Xtter:
[Update 1: I see #TamponTim is “rising” on Twitter. It’s great to see that the online component of the Trump Campaign and the Republican party is working hard to run against that “weird” thing. For the uninitiated, this is about Walz signing a bill that required tampons to be stocked in all bathrooms (including male ones) in public and charter schools. Despite what you will hear, it wasn’t specifically about stocking them in male bathrooms. Like other legislation making school lunches free, this was a poverty mitigation measure.]
