Kamala Harris’ acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was a turning point in her 2024 presidential bid, both in terms of political planning and the existence of high stakes. It was not only a moment when democrats rallied behind their candidate and sought guidance, but also when the success of her speech was measured as a potential to translate the convention, popularity into political capital.
The speech was perfectly crafted to provide both harsh critique of the former president Donald Trump and a vision for the future. Her staging of Trump as ‘an unserious man’ whose regaining of presidency would cause ‘extremely serious’ outcomes was of intention to continue the Democrats’ ethos of Trump as a destabilizing factor. This is similar to the past Democratic strategies where a clear contrast was made in order to get voters to the polls. For example, in 1964, presidential incumbent Lyndon B Johnson’s campaign was able to successfully paint his opponent Barry Goldwater as a dangerous radical which successfully demonstrated the potential of framing an opponent as anathema to order and stability.
That said, following Harris’s lead and emphasizing Trump’s perceived non-seriousness requires careful balance. Historical analysis indicates that when negative campaigning is employed, they offer a boost to the party’s supporters, but it may definitely have a negative effect on the floating voters in the absence of a positive selling point. In the 2004 presidential race, George W. Bush’s campaign did a good job both attacking John Kerry’s positions and presenting a positive vision for the future, which led to Bush’s re-election.
Apart from her criticism of Trump, it would be pertinent to note that Harris delivered a speech with the aim of unifying the American people. Her promise to serve as the ‘President of all Americans’ and focus on the main areas of concern that include the borders, health care and world affairs was actually aimed at attracting a broad base of voters. This strategy is similar to previous examples, such as the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States during the Great Depression, who faced significant economic difficulties yet was able to create a team of individuals who could solve problems together and thus give a sense of unity.
Additionally, the approach Harris took to Gaza’s conflict is fairly balanced due to her promise of dedication to working on the conflict in a manner that will consider the security of Israel while also considering the rights of the Palestinian people; it is very convenient for priming the concerned voters with humanitarian issues. This effort to link foreign affairs with domestic issues is typical of political leaders, and seems intended to suggest that Obama is capable of handling the multiple facets of these daunting global issues in the same way that President John F. Kennedy established himself as a powerful figure when he successfully navigated the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Whether Harris will change anyone’s mind or even bring up voters’ opinions and contributions from the middle-ground states, remains to be seen. As Jon Lieber of Eurasia Group pointed out, the effectiveness of the convention will be determined by its outcomes that will be seen outside the convention, especially on television and social media. Historical movements have shown others that conventions can provide a platform from which to start the process of building support but that the key area of strength will be in the accruing of repeated electoral support.
For example, in the 1972 presidential campaign, George McGovern performed well at the convention, but failed to secure electoral victory, particularly because it was hard for him to sustain enthusiasm and address people’s demands. Harris’s challenge is similar: she will have to translate such opportunities into the tangible issues that impact a cross-section of voters in order to respond to Trump.
Symbolically, being a woman, the first female vice president of South Asian and African American origin, Harris’s candidacy expands the depth of meaning that existed in the campaign. This symbolism parallels the effect of other historic candidates who include President Barack Obama where his 2008 Campaign was largely a realization of the potentiality of symbolizing the capabilities of a black man hence convincing the Americas.
However, as a symbol of the new era, Harris has a two-fold difficult task of producing tangible outcomes and keeping the spirit of the convention high. There is even a shift from being a symbolic figure to a president, thus in addition to rhetoric, there is a need to provide good governance as well.
