Democrats had a good week last week. Defying the expectations of some, Kamala Harris emerged as a credible presidential candidate. The now-presumed Democratic nominee is raising millions of dollars in funds, signing up thousands of volunteers, and rising in the polls. All that is great. But the prospect of a second Trump presidency remains. Democrats have not broken the code to reach voters skeptical about the direction of the Democratic party. That is a problem.
Democrats often assume, with justification, that they are the party of empathy and common sense. Democrats reject racism and oppose income inequality. Unions embrace the party. So why do so many working Americans still show up at Trump rallies, sporting MAGA baseball caps and telling reporters that the 2020 election was stolen and that Democrats are cheating again by replacing Biden on their 2024 ticket with Harris?
Over the weekend, I gained new insights into the minds of voters who appear immune to the buzz that Harris has generated. These voters are not “haters” but fashion themselves as “independents.” If you push them, they will explain that, unlike you, they listen to both sides. One such “independent” voter last week told me that the criminal prosecutions of Trump were “bogus” and politically motivated. Unintentionally quoting Trump, I was told “Trump did nothing wrong.” When I asked about the rape in a department store dressing room, I was told, “It never happened. He did not know her.”
Some “independent” voters are also buying into Trump’s characterization of Harris as a “crazy ultra-left-wing radical” who would open the border, defund the police, and federalize elementary and secondary education. Harris, of course, has not endorsed any of that agenda, but it doesn’t matter. Harris was a senator from California. Isn’t that proof enough of how leftist she is?
The skepticism relating to Harris extends to her qualifications. She is a lawyer and experienced prosecutor who served as Attorney General of California before being elected to the Senate. That experience, I was told over the weekend, “is irrelevant.” In response, I suggested that Trump is a failed businessman who has been found guilty of business fraud in New York, got his start with a large gift from his father, and has been bailed out of financial trouble several times by bankruptcy. My skeptical friend told me, “Those things never happened.”
Failing to recognize a dead end in the conversation, I returned to the subject of Harris and noted that the speeches she has made since Biden’s withdrawal from the race were coherent and intelligent. My friend did not dispute that characterization but simply repeated the claim that Harris is “not ready.” This prompted another woman in the room to ask, “What about Hillary Clinton?” The response was, “She also wasn’t ready.” Service as Secretary of State and in the U.S. Senate proves nothing, apparently.
The conversation continued on a sharp downward trajectory towards a shouting match or name calling. I ended the conversation by excusing myself to watch the Olympic opening ceremony. My TV was showing the controversial reenactment of Da Vinci’s “Last Supper.” One word describes it, “weird.” I would use the same word to describe political discussions where my facts are rejected as “fake” by others.
How do you discuss issues with people who appear to believe many of Trump’s documented lies? I am still seeking an answer.
How do you get someone to listen to a Trump rally, hear the nonsense the ex-president spouts off about Hannibal Lecter, his golf game (“I knock the crap out of the ball”) and dozens of other subjects? I don’t know.
When I press supposedly “open-minded independents” to focus on Trump’s own words, I am told that I don’t get that Trump is only joking. If this claim is correct, I also don’t get what a joke is.
Trump’s rhetoric since the Republican convention has been, in a word, disgusting. His selection of the self-destructing J.D. Vance may be more responsible for Harris’ rise in the polls than the speeches that Harris has given, but I hope not. I like to think that Harris is not only “ready,” but also willing and able. Two of these three qualities don’t apply to Republican Supreme Leader Trump.
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects.
Based on the editorial it would seem that you spoke to people firmly in the trump camp and not actual independent voters. Those that are in the 65% of Americans that want a strong 3rd party, find Kamala Harris no more prepared for the oval office than she was when she performed so poorly at the last election, and are deeply disgusted that RFK Jr is getting no positive press. And this isn’t because he doesn’t offer a reasonable, positive message, but because his platform is a threat to the corporate oligarchy that is destroying our nation.
When entering into similar discussions to the ones you mention, I find RFK Jr being written off as an anti-vaxxer with a brain worm, etc., which is actually quite ridiculous. My typical response is with a question; “How much time have you spent really and truly researching your candidate? Not sound bites, not news blurbs, but really doing your homework?” The answer, practically without exception is, nearly none.
By comparison, when I first heard about RFK Jr as a candidate, I began to listen to full length interviews and podcasts with him on, reading articles, etc. I’ve coming away from it all firmly believing that RFK Jr is the most reasonable, patriotic, cogent and capable candidate in the running. Hands down.
I consider myself to be very much a moderate for most of my voting life, and have been independent for over a decade as I grew disenfranchised by the duopoly. I’d consider myself to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and in the past had GOP leanings. Not that any of that matters, except to attempt to present myself as “the average voter”.
Unfortunately, the media has lost its way and is unwilling and unable to provide equal coverage or an unbiased view into ALL the candidates. Otherwise, I think you would have a very different experience speaking with your “independent” acquantences.
Thank you for your comment.
I read part of RFK’s book on Dr. Fauci, and that was enough for me to dismiss him as a serious candidate.
I respect moderate voters like yourself who, for one reason or another, haven’t seen enough to support Harris. I believe that the November election will be close and that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. For that reason, I could not support any third-party candidate unless I believed they had a reasonable chance of winning.
In any case, thank you for reading the conversation and adding to the discussion.