Kamala Harris’ VP Pick Is the Best We Could Have Hoped For

(Joe Lamberti/AP Photo)

As I’m writing, the news just broke earlier this morning that Kamala Harris is picking Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her running mate. This is good news! A big part of why it’s good news, perhaps the primary reason even, is because it means we avoided the most likely alternative: Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, who has analogized pro-Palestine protestors to the KKK and supported punishing companies that boycott Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank. That he was one of the top two contenders is… not great. Nor is the fact that, reportedly, it was Shapiro’s personal ambition that ultimately cost him a spot on the ticket, rather than his virulently anti-Palestinian record. But whatever the case, Shapiro will not be on the ticket and Walz will, and that’s a win.

Branko Marcetic of Jacobin did, I think, a pretty good job covering what Walz has done as governor, and why he’s a solid choice for VP. With the help of Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature, some genuinely significant reforms have been made in Minnesota: universal free school meals, free public college tuition for families making under $80,000 a year, the most generous child tax credit in the country, major investments in education and child care, a ban on noncompete clauses in worker contracts, and paid family and medical leave, among other measures. Even with a divided state legislature, Walz managed to get through “one of the toughest wage theft laws in the country[.]” It’s not a very high bar, but from what I’ve gathered Walz may genuinely be one of the best, if not the single best, sitting governor in the country. Additionally, Walz has a greater personal familiarity with China than many other US politicians, and has emphasized the importance of US-China cooperation on issues like climate change — a positive contrast with a lot of the anti-China rhetoric coming from both parties.

He also seems closer to being a normal guy than most politicians at the national level. He is the first person to be on a Democratic presidential ticket without having attended law school since Jimmy Carter, for instance. He was a high school geography teacher and football coach before he got into politics. He doesn’t even own stock. Photos of him at the state fair, for instance, don’t feel like the desperate attempts of one of the They Live aliens to appear normal, which is more than can be said for many other politicians. 

This does appear to be a much better choice than Obama made in 2008, for instance, when he “balanced the ticket” by choosing Joe Biden — an establishment politician with a heinous record which he has since added considerably to. Balancing her image as a California liberal, Harris managed to pick someone who both has a sort of heartland appeal and isn’t some utterly depressing concession to the party’s “moderate” establishment. 

But if Tim Walz is the best we could have realistically hoped for, that’s still a testament to the shortcomings of the Democratic Party. Returning to Marcetic’s article, he notes:

To be sure, there were limits to his progressivism. Walz, proud of having never used his veto, first deployed it… for the most ignominious of reasons: to kill a minimum wage and worker protection bill for Uber and Lyft drivers, and halt a separate pair of bills giving nurses a say in staffing levels (which was watered down to a student loan forgiveness measure for nurses) and creating a health care affordability board that could penalize providers and insurers for too-high costs. Walz vetoed both after businesses threatened to pull out or withdraw investment from the state.

Despite significant action on climate, Walz’s approval of the Line 3 oil pipeline and tolerance toward pollution by farmers have earned him criticism from environmental groups. And, as governor when the murder of George Floyd occurred, he presided over a heavy-handed response to protests and ultimately enacted only limited police reforms before pouring more money into police departments. Back when he served in Congress, Walz also introduced a resolution calling for the government to quickly relinquish its ownership interests in GM and Chrysler (acquired as part of the auto bailout) and to not “unduly intercede” in any of the companies’ management decisions, staking out a firmly pro-capitalist, anti-socialist stance on the issue. 

Walz was, in fact, a relatively moderate congressman who shifted leftward after becoming governor. That he did so is good, of course, but it does raise the question of whether that stance will last once he’s out of Minnesota state politics and back in D.C. Minnesota, it’s worth noting, has the longest ongoing streak of voting for the Democrat in presidential elections, and is the only state Ronald Reagan failed to carry both times. So not exactly a microcosm of American politics as a whole.

It is hard not to reminisce back to a time that was just four and a half years ago but feels, politically, like a different era completely. In late 2019 and early 2020, the left’s (apparently realistic) hope was that Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic nominee. Now, less than half a decade later, it’s a victory when the number two spot on the ticket goes to a politician who, whatever his merits, is hardly a part of the Bernie Sanders/Squad wing of the Democratic Party. 

It would also be remiss to not bring up Israel/Palestine here. Walz has certainly struck a more conciliatory tone than Josh Shapiro, praising the uncommitted vote movement during the Democratic primaries as “civically engaged.” But neither he nor Harris has said anything to indicate they would represent some major break with Biden’s policies. It should be the most basic moral litmus test imaginable at this point to take the position that Bernie Sanders has (belatedly) taken: an end to arms transfers to Israel while the slaughter in Gaza continues. But it’s a test the Democratic presidential ticket has yet to pass. And I’m not holding my breath. 

With all the good vibes and enthusiasm going on around the Democratic ticket right now, it’s also hard not to think back to 2008 and how that ended up turning out. Depending on whether you’re a liberal or someone further left (like me), you’ll probably lay the blame in different ways. But pretty much all of us can agree that Hope and Change didn’t quite pan out how we were dreaming of. 

The fact that Harris picked Walz over Shapiro is good. If it signals that the era of Clinton-Obama neoliberalism is over, that’s even better. But let’s not let the desperation for some good news in the world of politics tee things up for more disappointment and heartbreak.

Do We Really Have to Exaggerate How Bad Trump Is?

(Doug Mills/The New York Times, edited by me)

The latest Trump micro-scandal* centers, as usual, on a stupid thing he said. Addressing “beautiful Christians” during a speech in Florida, he said: “[G]et out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more… in four years, you don't have to vote again.” The reaction was swift and predictable: everyone from random posters on X-formerly-Twitter to the Harris campaign agreed this was a “vow to end democracy.” The actual context, in my reading, makes that far from clear (and in fact unlikely). The bit in question came as Trump was talking about the importance of winning the election to “save America,” and Trump concluded: “We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote [in four years].” 

So, really, this was another typical bit of Trump bullshit: “I’ll fix everything so good you won’t even have to worry about voting again, just get out and do it this once!” A ridiculous thing to promise, obviously, but not exactly a declaration that he’ll be installing himself as president-for-life. It’s easy to grant this while admitting Trump and the movement behind him are bad for democracy and that Trump himself has no fondness for the rules and norms of the democratic process. But if you say what I just said, you’re liable to be scolded for whitewashing Trump’s comments, trying to twist them into something less alarming than they are. This is not up for debate. Trump said he would end democracy, because he is a dangerous fascist who will destroy the constitution. You are obligated to be Terrified.

So my question is, simply, why do we have to keep doing this? A few months ago it was the “bloodbath” comment — in context, plainly about what would supposedly happen to the economy if Biden was reelected but predictably framed instead as a threat of actual violence. Before that it was how he said he’d be a dictator on day one (an obviously trollish, typically incoherent remark about how he’d “only” be a dictator for the first day so we could drill and build the wall, or something). The narrative has completely calcified at this point: Trump has promised he will rule as a tyrant and abolish elections if he wins. If we fuck this up, it’s all over. Our Democracy Is At Stake. 

The thing is, Trump was president for four years and didn’t transform America into the Fourth Reich. The typical response to that reality is that this time is different. How? I’m not sure if it’s just been memory-holed at this point, but he actually made many extravagant, often disturbing, promises during the 2016 campaign and didn’t follow through while in office. He said he would build a 1,000-mile border wall and make Mexico pay for it. He said he would deport every single undocumented immigrant. He said he would shut down mosques. He said he would put in place libel laws that would let him retaliate against negative press coverage. He said he would bring back the country’s manufacturing sector. He said he would lock up Hillary Clinton. None of that happened. So why the histrionics about everything he says now? Why the need to take his words out of context so they sound scarier than they actually are?

The most coherent response I’ve seen to this is that this time, Trump will be surrounded by people loyal to him, so there won’t be any check on his authoritarian ambitions. But overthrowing American democracy and installing fascism would also require a certain degree of competence and organizational skill. So far the one person Trump has picked for his prospective second administration is J.D. Vance, who… doesn’t exactly strike me a modern-day Heinrich Himmler. Given how Trump’s campaign is currently floundering, it also seems obvious they didn’t plan for Kamala Harris becoming the Democratic nominee despite the fact it was the most obvious contingency they could have anticipated. Not exactly a high degree of competence! Trump is a dumb, lazy narcissist, and the people most loyal to him tend to be somewhat less than brilliant tacticians.

If you’re a convinced Democratic partisan and you’re still reading at this point, you’re likely seething at the way I’m soft-pedaling how bad Trump is. But the thing is, I think Trump is plenty bad! There are a lot of good reasons not to want him to return to power! Maybe instead of arguing that this time Trump would institute actual fascism and it will be So Much Worse than his first presidency, we could talk more about the things he actually did during that presidency. This would include:

• Signing an expensive tax law that gave a massive handout to the wealthy
• Pulling out of the Paris climate accords and rolling back a litany of environmental protections 
• Appointing three of the Supreme Court justices responsible for killing Roe v. Wade
• Starting a trade war with China that hurt the economy and failed to stop offshoring 
• Deregulating the banking industry 
• Instituting a cruel and punitive family separation policy at the border

All of these things are bad! They are also generally not popular, which might explain in part why Trump had a consistently sub-par approval rating throughout his presidency. A second Trump presidency could certainly be worse, but even if it’s more of the same, that’s bad enough. So why exaggerate and engage in wild speculation when you could just point to the undeniable realities here?

It would be one thing if the fevered anti-Trump rhetoric scared people away from voting for him (still not a good thing, given that dishonesty is generally wrong, but at least a pragmatic one). But I don’t think it has that effect. Right or wrong, I think the average normie American can’t imagine things changing all that much from one president to another. So warning that Trump is going to transform the country into Nazi America rings false. And, worse, if they notice that Trump’s statements are getting taken out of context, it sort of undermines all the criticism of Trump for his habitual lying (“look, everybody does it!”).

The same, by the way, goes for the much-discussed Project 2025. I haven’t read the project’s 920-page policy document, but I’m guessing you and most people talking about it haven’t either. From what I can gather it’s basically a super-conservative wishlist: ultra-Reaganite economic policies, reactionary social policies, and a reorganization of the executive branch to make it easier for a Republican president to carry out his agenda. That all sucks! But what it doesn’t amount to is a plan to make The Handmaid’s Tale a reality, or a modern-day Mein Kampf. Nor do we have to pretend that Trump is actually going to carry out every part of a plan he’s explicitly distanced himself from, and that includes (among other things) criminalizing porn.

So, whence cometh the need to exaggerate how bad this all is when the facts are bad enough? I don’t think it speaks to either sincere confusion or cynical dishonesty on the part of most people doing it. What I think it really speaks to is how much we’re all craving a sense of greater purpose. It’s hard to look at the state of the world and have much optimism about the future. So, if there’s not much good to hope for, we might as well exaggerate the scale of the bad that we’re fighting against. Blowing this election up into a world-historic battle against the forces of evil is certainly more psychologically satisfying than admitting it’s a choice between two strains of the same depressing ideology — one that flatly refuses to envision a world beyond profits, and big corporations, and American empire, and competition with China, and arbitrary inequalities enforced by violence. 

To that extent, it’s understandable to build Trump and the Republicans up into a movement that threatens to bring Christian Fascism to America, rather than just more of the same depressing shit we’ve all had enough of. But as someone whose own ideology is diametrically opposed to the GOP’s, it’s still become completely exhausting — largely because it often serves as an excuse to try and browbeat the left into voting for whoever has a D next to their name this time. But more important than its being tiresome, it’s not productive, and it’s not healthy. When one side has lost all touch with reality, it doesn’t help anything for the other to follow suit.

*In the time since I started writing this post, the micro-scandal in question has already been arguably succeeded by one over Trump saying Kamala Harris “became” a Black person. As noted, he says a lot of stupid shit!