Skip to main content

It’s Okay to Fall in Love, But We Have to Fall in Line

 

They like the fact that this is a young Black woman squaring off against an old white guy. They like that she's going to all just talk about abortion. And they like the fact that she was a prosecutor and he's a felon. They like that framing.

   JesseWatters, Fox News host

 

I couldn’t have said it better. Watters, the current occupant of Tucker Carlson’s old time slot, was trying to sound smarmy and insulting — his default setting — but when you see his words on the page, you realize he’s reading the situation with uncanny accuracy.

Hell yes, we like that framing. More, please.

The rollout of Brand Kamala was superb. A marketing coup of the first order, I was agog. Before we’d even absorbed that Biden was stepping aside, the websites were up, the lawn signs were printed, the merch was available for purchase, and there she was, ready for her closeup. A star is born.

It was as smooth a launch as I’ve ever seen, and to think it was cobbled together in less than two weeks shows a lot about what the traditionally fractious Democratic Party has become, in the face of what it perceives as a real threat.

The old cliché that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" was just obliterated. Not that Democrats aren’t falling in love, but they’re definitely falling in line. Republicans are just falling.

Anyone who has followed the Democratic Party for the last half-century can only look on in awe. Just as in Poland last year, just as in France and Britain this month, there’s now a real coalition, with all rivalries set aside. For maybe the first time in my life, Democrats are totally in array.

The prevailing feeling is relief. We’d been anticipating four months of high anxiety at the thought of any repeat of that one devastating debate. There will be enough October surprises as it is.

Most of the credit goes to Joe Biden. In our collective agita of the last month, we knew we could trust him to do the right thing, but we didn’t know what the right thing was. He figured it out before we did. When you think about it, Biden has been a step ahead of the rest of us for at least the last four years.

He weighed the situation, he figured out the solution, and he acted fast. In one stroke, he took Trump’s legs out from under him, and sent the Republican Party into panic mode. He flipped the “age” issue on its head, which is a big deal. But that’s just part of it.

He ended the vendetta against his son, which removes an entire industry of right-wing talking points. All talk of impeachment will soon fade away, and we can put to rest forever the “Biden Crime Family” and its nefarious but totally fictional ties to China and Ukraine.

House Republicans already had nothing to show for their two years of control, and now they have less than nothing. Maybe they can cook up a Harris Crime Family on short notice.

But more than any of this, Biden made yet one more payment on the party’s longstanding debt to Black America. It was Sen. James Clyburn who engineered his victory in the South Carolina primary of 2020, paving the way for his presidency, and it wasn't forgotten.

It’s not news that Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party. They do the heavy lifting of both local politics and electoral administration. They volunteer. They work the precincts. They get out the vote. They protect the integrity of the process.

Biden understood that debt — perhaps more deeply than any of us did — and he acted on it. There are now Black women thriving at every level of his administration, including one on the Supreme Court.

And then there’s Kamala Harris. 

Black and Woman, the two things Republicans fear most. To them, she is hell on heels, and she has no problem rubbing it in their faces. When she speaks of her long experience with predators and swindlers, you know she’s hitting all of them, not just Trump, where they live.

Biden spent his entire career being collegial. He was civil and respectful to everyone, no matter how odious. I never felt he’d fully come to grips with the sheer vileness of Trump and the MAGA crowd. I think it offended him deeply, yet he always seemed reluctant to confront it.

Not so, Kamala. Her whole time in the Senate was spent with knives out. She is under no illusions about these jerks, and she seems to understand the value of ridicule. Her clear intention is to hit Trump hard. Since the courts can’t get to him in time, she’s happy to take the case to the public. She’s already putting out the messaging she wants to use — “I know Donald Trump’s type”  — and she is quite comfortable using all the words the press won’t: liar, rapist, fraud, felon. I haven’t heard her call him a traitor yet, but we can hope.

Biden will leave an astonishing legacy, but he’s not done yet. He’s still president, and he still has some tricks up his sleeve. Like yesterday’s editorial in the Washington Post, in which he fires a serious shot across the Supreme Court’s bow. Nobody expects anything to come of it any time soon, but it does shine a harsh spotlight on the Alito-Thomas junta. Plus, it was timed nicely to ride the Kamala wave.

But while Biden was the ideal guy to run the government these last four years, he has never been a great campaigner. He can bring the fire when he needs to, but public speaking has never been his strength. Even when he’s good, he’s not that good.

Kamala, on the other hand, is a natural. She creates energy. She thinks on her feet. She knows how to reach an audience, just as she once reached a jury. The skills are not unrelated.

So yes, it’s okay to fall in love with Kamala, just as we did with Obama in 2008. But what’s important is not the falling in love, it’s the falling in line.

When you’re trying to hold on to a democracy, what’s love got to do with it?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Can the Abortion Issue Slip Any Further Under the Radar?

  One of the many chilling ironies of the war on abortion is that the states most insistent on women having babies, no matter what, are also the ones with the least to offer those babies once they’ve had the bad luck to be born there. And it’s important to understand that these states are getting increasingly insistent on women having babies, no matter what. Goaded and guided by abortion abolitionists in legislatures, law firms, and courtrooms, Republican governments are, one way or another, actively blocking off any avenue that doesn’t lead to a woman of any age getting pregnant, giving birth, then getting pregnant again. Rinse and repeat. If the woman dies in the process, she’s easily replaced. The idea seems to be that women are a sort of production line, whose purpose is to generate usable babies. The way they get pregnant is irrelevant to the discussion. If they were impregnated by, say, an uncle, or a rapist, or a clergyman, the laws of these states ca...

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...