Kamala Harris Must End the Age of Democratic Half-Measures

Benjamin Netanyahu received over fifty standing ovations from Congress this week. Dozens and dozens clapped for him as he justified unthinkable war crimes against Palestinians who he made sure to paint as “not innocent.” For the occasion, schlubby Senator John Fetterman even went so far as to don a tie and suit, an honorific he has fought tooth and nail since he entered the Senate. Despite the crimes and corruption and the way he has used and abused the United States, Netanyahu was given the hero’s treatment and had the full red carpet rolled out for him in our nation’s capital.

It was a stunning contrast to the budding enthusiasm surrounding Vice President Kamala Harris’s nascent presidential campaign. Biden’s struggles as the presumptive nominee were numerous, including his inability to prosecute the case against Donald Trump and his clearly diminished capacity, but the stain of Gaza was certainly as damning as anything.

A week ago, Harris attempted to thread the needle on Gaza with her first remarks since taking the mantle. She reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself while characterizing the violence as “devastating.” She promised she would not be silent on the tragedy. Rhetorically, it followed the staid and calculated remarks Biden has made, though it might have felt different to some considering the new energy she has brought to the campaign. The vice president pressed for a ceasefire and assured supporters that she heard the calls for peace and cessation.

To see most of the Democratic Party and all of the Republicans united in their support for Netanyahu was sickening and a reminder of the horrific general consensus in place in Washington, D.C.

For all of the gesturing and posturing in regard to the culture war, the foreign policy duopoly we are saddled with remains a blight on our political process. The emergence of Harris as an energizing force has been predicated on the appearance of a generational shift within the party, a shift that at least inspires hope that the foreign policy consensus between the parties might crumble or at least transform. The shame of Congress uniting around this war criminal, and doing it so joyously and rapturously, should give us significant pause as to what our bipartisanship on this subject actually leads to.

With every generational shift, there are starts and stops. Moments of hope and moments of disappointment. The closest analogue is Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008, an affair that promised hope and change and fundamental transformation. Many of us believed him and took him at his word because, after eight years of President George W. Bush spearheading a disastrous and brutal illegal world war, there was a need for belief in something better. When the economy crashed in 2008 and neoliberal hypercapitalism went into a death spasm, consciously and unconsciously, there was a spark of determination that the status quo had to change.

Of course, Obama’s victory did not deliver a radical departure from the norm. If anything, Obama’s tenure represented something akin to Woodrow Wilson’s creation of the modern administrative state. Wilson, capitalizing off the energy of the Progressive Movement—a grassroots push for more democracy, more basic rights, and to bring the fight to the wealth class—created what he considered a beautiful maze of technocratic rule that could modernize how government functioned in the 20th century. In that, he was successful. But the push for more democratic representation was snuffed out in favor of the elite gaining more systemic power. What Obama largely gave us was a slick, tech-infused version of empire that Bush and his neoconservative cronies could have never truly imagined. Joe Biden is reportedly fond of saying “Barack would be jealous” of his accomplishments, and Obama’s reported confirmation of this proves how far to the right his administration was to Joe Biden’s.

We stand at a fork in the road. The upper crust of the Democratic Party is sclerotic. Aging leaders like Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi have dominated its movements for years because of their control over the party mechanics and its fundraising apparatus. This has generally led to a full-on allegiance with the neoliberal consensus. Biden’s faltering is an opening. The party’s future leaders are now middle-aged and have been kept at bay for far too long. When Biden lost the confidence of America and the Democrats, it flung open the door for change and succession. Now, the question is whether we will stay on this destructive course or radically alter our direction.

The enthusiasm around Harris is infectious. Over 100,000 people joined a Zoom call yesterday named “White Women Answer the Call for Kamala Harris.” Young people who were reticent to support Biden are rallying around her as yet another symbol of change, but her remarks on Palestine were a clunky attempt to address both sides of the divide: those who want the killing and brutality to stop and those who remain committed to supporting the status quo no matter how much suffering it causes. 

Who she picks for her vice president will be one indication of how serious she is to change the status quo, assuming the party does not pick it for her. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear has proven himself a man of principle and is a willing attack-dog against the Far Right. And, yet, the possibility of his joining the ticket has been largely downplayed in favor of centrists Senator Mark Kelly and Governor Josh Shapiro. And why? Because the natural inclination for the Democratic Party is to moderate, to wring its hands, to dilute the new with a sense of the old.

There is a good chance that, regardless of who the vice-presidential nominee is, that Kamala Harris will defeat Donald Trump. The stark contrast between the two is undeniable. Biden stepping aside has made that much clear. But simply viewing politics through the lens of election battles has limited our imagination and possibilities for far too long. If Harris wins, and she very well could, it needs to represent a larger sea change than just the passing of the torch. To be truly transformational, which is what this moment of crisis requires, there needs to be a radical departure from the status quo.

America’s continued support for the genocide in Gaza is a generational folly that will be remembered forever alongside our interference in democratic activities in the mid-20th centuries, the horrific Vietnam War, and the military-industrial complex’s illegal War on Terror in the 21st century. Not only should we stop supplying and supporting Israel’s assault on a captive civilian population, we should fully seek amends with the international community as we accept our nation’s role in making the world a more dangerous place.

When it comes to the VP selection, it’s of far lesser consequence, but this move, along with every other, deserves to be treated as fully signifying a desire to change course and find a new and better way. All policy decisions, platforms, and rhetoric should shift significantly as a means addressing the very real material conditions that have dominated the 21st century and led us to this depraved moment.

It is not often you are given a second chance like this. They are rare. And if we are to find some way forward, some way that even begins to make changes for the better, it is time to stop with these damning half-measures.