1. Kamala is “lighting up the skies.” and “stirring up the heavens.” Her candidacy is historic. It comes at a time of great anxiety about the country’s future. Overnight she’s become a political and cultural star. The spontaneous actions supporting her candidacy — the zoom calls come to mind — signify a new political dynamic is in play. Presidential polls haven’t flipped entirely, but they are moving in that direction. Black women and women generally, Black people and people of color, the young, and, not least, the progressive movement, are embracing her candidacy with vigor, pride, and energy. She’s the new leader of the anti-MAGA movement that since 2018 has scored impressive victories in every election cycle. It’s no exaggeration to say her candidacy has distinct echoes of Obama’s first presidential campaign in 2008. And this is only two weeks into her campaign. What’s not to be excited about?
2. It is silly and naive to think or expect Kamala to campaign on a left program. It would be a strategic, no catastrophic, error of enormous consequence and a recipe for defeat. To win the election she must appeal to a broader audience than the left. Thus, the main thrust of her campaign is expand freedom in its various forms, not shackle capitalism. It needs no saying that such a thrust clashes frontally and fundamentally with Trump’s plan, if elected, to erase democracy and democratic rights.
3. I read in “Liberation” that the candidacy of Kamala allows the left to turn its attention to building the left, but if that means taking its eye off the primary task of mobilizing the vote for Kamala and down ballot Democrats, and the article, taken as a whole, suggests that conclusion, it makes little sense to me. Setting aside the imperative of maximum unity to get out the anti-MAGA vote, the supposition that the left can grow in size and organizational capacity while dialing down on its involvement in the practical activities of the broad coalition lined up against Trump at this moment strikes me as completely wrongheaded.
4. To say outright or suggest that Kamala is no more than a “centrist Democrat,” as some have, is politically mistaken. Like many Democrats and the party as a whole, the center of gravity in the Democratic Party is (and has been) shifting in a progressive direction, not on every issue and not at every moment, but shifting nonetheless. And Kamala, as does Biden, reflect this shift. Isn’t the decision of her and many other Democrats to boycott the Netanyahu speech reflective of this shift? The habit of clinging to old categories of analysis when events have upended their analytical value is never a good idea, especially if you hang out on the left or progressive end of the political spectrum.
5. The election formations organizing people to vote for Kamala and other Democrats in November are many. The left has no monopoly on them. Nor can it claim that it is setting the pace. In the Hudson Valley, where I live, Indivisible and some other similar formations seem to be the best games in town. Neither Working Families nor Progressive Democrats of America have much of a presence here. In Chicago, a friend tells me much the same thing. Indivisible is already at work, including door to door visits in WI and MI.
In other words, progressive and democratic organizations, including local Democratic committees and labor, are already in the fight on a practical level and possess mobilizing capacity that should be acknowledged. In fact, in too many instances, the left has to catch up. Too often the left’s rhetorical opposition to MAGA outpaces its practical — on the ground — mobilizing work. Of course, there are exceptions, none more so than the Working Families Party, Center for Popular Democracy, and People’s Action. Together they have pledged to speak to 5 million voters in battleground states this fall. But even in this case, their plans are aspirational, the work lies ahead.
6. The decision by President Biden to step aside is to be welcomed. After all, few people give up power willingly. Biden could have decided to stay on. He had the delegate votes to be the nominee, if he so chose. But he decided, a bit begrudgingly at first, to put the country before his own political desires and clear the ground for Kamala’s ascendency. Admittedly, he was nudged along by his colleagues in the Democratic Party, not least Nancy Pelosi, as well as public sentiment across the country. Nevertheless, it was his, and solely his, decision to make. And he made the right one, as subsequent events have strikingly confirmed. And that’s to his credit.
To suggest that other events prompted his decision to step down is mistaken. Had he had a good debate night against Trump, there is little doubt in my mind anyway that he would be the Democratic nominee once again.
