Winning Big Part 5: We are the Champions

September 12 2024, Post #5.

"I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them."—Taylor Swift, Instagram post, 9/10/24

At last, the final part of a 5-part blog post. We've covered why we need a landslide and then focused on three keys:

• Defining the election (Make Manufacturing Great Again)
• Defining Our Opponent (Trump is Boring!)

And this final post in the series is the third key:

• Galvanize people across the divide

Do champions risk over promising?

In my last post I pointed out our nominees need to be the champions of those whose votes we need. Harris and Walz will fix it!

But doesn't being a champion risk over promising? And if it does, isn't that bad? Remember the admonition, "under promise, over deliver." Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer argued in a recent interview on the Ezra Klein Show that we shouldn't promise too much. I disagree: we need leaders who recognize the costs we have endured as a country when wages have stagnated for so long. And we need politicians who will fight for higher wages and things that seem impossible, like the return of pensions and so much more. And they have to be willing to break with norms to get those things done. Better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission. And best to demonstrate repeatedly that you embody that attitude.

(But then again, who am I to call out Whitmer? She ran on a small promise with a punchy slogan: Fix the Damn Roads! Like all great slogans, it has a verb in it. And, like all great campaigns, it created a primary focus that defined the election. History will never recall what her opponent ran on; she nailed it. If a top priority as narrow as roads can work, so can a focus on manufacturing.)

If Harris and Walz promise to Make Manufacturing Great Again, as I previously argued they should, voters will cut them some slack if their efforts fall prey to gridlock—as long voters perceive them to be trying hard.

Here's an example of how effort in the face of failure worked for Trump. Early in his presidency, he promised to revitalize coal, which largely failed. But it was not for lack of effort. He tried to force utility companies to buy energy generated from coal-fired power plants. People pointed out that he didn't have the power to demand that. But he kept demanding it, kept haranguing them. Finally, he was stopped in the courts because a president can't just decree that utility companies must tear up existing contracts with power providers and switch sources.

A lot of people saw his efforts as an example of his crazy overreach. As a person worried about climate change, I hated the idea. But I admire how hard he fought for coal. It made me wish he was on our side fighting to stop climate change! And that feeling is exactly what he engendered among his voters: Trump tries damn hard for us.

There's another lesson in that story for us. When we see Trump or some candidate pursuing an outrageous and dangerous course, we are repulsed. But we should also have a more political response: Gee, he sure is galvanizing his base! While calling him out, we should simultaneously ask ourselves, what are we doing to create change that transcends the constraints we face? What can we do to build faith that we are committed to our cause?

If Trump loses in 2024, it won't be because he over promised. But if Harris loses, it will be because she underpromised, because she failed to convince the right voters that she was the better champion. That is my explanation for why the race is as close as it is: she takes plenty of swings against Trump. But she needs to show she will swing much harder for us—and focus on an issue voters care about deeply.

But aren't champions too radical?

To succeed, championing a cause and its voters does not have to entail a radically progressive agenda. (I wish it did, but it doesn't.) Look at Barack Obama: he ran to the right of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries. Yet his constant refrain of change and "Yes we can" prevailed.

Let's leave aside the specific policy focus on manufacturing that I advocated for in earlier posts. Here I am advocating for pushing the envelope. She says, "When we fight, we win." She needs to show in so many ways she will stop at nothing to make a better economy. She doesn't have to be a boor or an insult machine. But she needs to make us believe she will break free of the bureaucratic constraints she faces, that she is leading the charge. We don't need her to be 100% successful. We need inspiration. We need to believe.

A champion advocates change, not necessarily ideology

In 2016, I volunteered for a friend, Jonathan Fulford, who was running to become our State House Rep here in Maine. He was the Democratic nominee and as progressive as they come—his top issue was climate change; that was the reason he ran. One day I saw something surprising. On a neighbor's lawn was Jonathan's sign, proudly displayed. Right next to it was another yard sign: Trump/Pence. What a jumble of contradictions! But their juxtaposition got me thinking.

I realized what Trump and Fulford had in common despite being polar opposites: both promised change. To this voter—and I would argue to many voters—it didn't matter what their flavor was. What mattered to the person displaying these signs was things had to change. Just do something!  

In July, I saw this photo on Facebook: a fast food worker wearing a MAGA hat with a T shirt featuring Che and the word "socialism." I wrote,

So there is something important in what looks like a contradiction: He wants hope, he wants change. And he's open to backing people who at least promise to deliver. We need to do that. It's not ideology that has captured him, but the desire for a better life, a better country.

Who is the change candidate?

Two things define elections: an issue and whether a nominee is running as an agent of change. As we'll see below, a presidential nominee from one of the two major parties running as a change agent almost always wins.

I argued previously that a key task is to keep Trump in his box. This is in no small part to blunt his efforts to be seen as the candidate of change.

 His allies know being the agent of change is crucial. As his former campaign manager Kelly Anne Conway put it during the DNC, Trump "is the insurgent. He is the change maker here. And we have to make sure that that message seeps through."

As I wrote in an earlier post, if Trump has taught us anything, it’s that elections are not the art of persuasion—that’s diplomacy. Elections are about giving voters what they want. And Trump is great at promising, sometimes at delivering. In 2015 and 2016, he promised to reduce prescription drug prices, renegotiate NAFTA, take on China, stop the opioid crisis, revive coal, and above all to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Democrats are quick to point out where he fell short, how bringing coal back would harm the environment, and rightly mocked his promise of an “infrastructure week,” which never materialized. But we take a wrong turn when we mock voters for being receptive to candidates who tell them what they want to hear. In a democracy, that's part of the job! The other part is delivering it.

Harris needs to tell us what we want to hear—and tell the right voters in swing states what they want to hear—and say it succinctly. Otherwise, they'll vote for he who must not be named.

The Clinton/Trump contest illustrated how being the candidate of change confers enormous advantage. Back then on the campaign trail, Trump was the agent of change against Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady, former Senator from New York, former Secretary of State, and “the most qualified candidate in history,” according to President Obama, was the antithesis of change. She ran as a “pragmatic progressive” against Bernie Sanders in the primaries; she promised four more years of Obama—or at least did not object to the label. And she openly worried about promising too much.

A key moment over the issue of who was the change agent occurred in the Clinton/Trump debates. They were sparring over the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty that Obama had negotiated. Trump was adamantly opposed to it because it was, wait for it, "the worst trade deal in history." Clinton, rightly sensing that voters also opposed the treaty, suggested maybe it wasn't the best deal. Her equivocation was perhaps preparing for coming out against it later.

Trump jumped on this saying, "You called it the gold standard." With that comment, he stuffed her back into her establishment box, heading off the chance she might transform into a candidate of change. And it worked.  

The appeal of change isn't hard to understand. It's little surprise that, when wages stagnate for half a century, people want change—not just those bearing the brunt of policies that created the stagnation, but many others who see the export of manufacturing jobs as evidence the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Harris needs to promise change. If we look at history, it becomes clear that ceding the change agent role to Trump could be fatal.

When the candidate of change runs, they win

Although it is often the case, the change candidate isn’t always focused on the economy. Going back as far as 1968, if we think of "change" as a candidate, they've had a stellar run. Back then, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent status quo candidate, ran against Richard Nixon. The latter cleverly promised he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. When asked what it was, Nixon said it was classified—and people voted for it anyway. The move neatly trapped Humphrey, who was reluctant to criticize his boss, President Lyndon Johnson, for waging the war—a reluctance that held until Humphrey finally started criticizing the war in the final weeks before the election. But by then it was too late.

In 1972, the only recent instance where change lost, the candidate of change was George McGovern. He lost to Nixon, the incumbent. One big reason the candidate of change lost: it was revealed that McGovern’s first vice presidential nominee had suffered from depression.

Four years later, in 1976, the candidate of change and winner was Jimmy Carter. One of his slogans was “A Leader for Change.” He paired it with the Cat Stevens song, “Get on the Peace Train” to suggest it was time to heal after the Vietnam War.

In 1980, change candidate Ronald Reagan won with a slogan that may sound familiar: Make America Great Again. In 1984 there was no candidate of change on the ballot, featuring a race between the incumbent Reagan and former Vice President Walter Mondale, also an insider. Mondale ran on a platform that included raising taxes to reduce the deficit, hardly an inspiring move. In 1988 there was no candidate of change running then, either. It featured the incumbent Vice President George HW Bush against Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who ran an uninspiring campaign.

But in 1992 came the change agent with the slogan coined by his strategist James Carville, “[It’s] the economy, stupid!”  The word “It’s” was added later. Ross Perot ran as a change candidate as well, but as an independent, he failed to win.

In 1996, neither major party featured a candidate of change: it was the incumbent Clinton against former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. Perot ran again but, excluded from the debates and not being the nominee of either major party, lost again.

In 2000, there was no candidate of change. The race featured the incumbent Vice President Al Gore vs George W. Bush, the son of a former president. We can leave aside debating who rightfully won that razor-thin contest because our concern is looking at the performance of candidates of change. Here, there wasn't one.

Nor was change on the ballot in 2004. That contest featured the incumbent George W. Bush against Senator John Kerry, who advocated escalating the war in Afghanistan, hardly an inspiring policy change.

But change appeared on the ballot in 2008, and won with Barack Obama's promise of "Yes we can!"

In 2012, there was no candidate of change; the race featured the incumbent Obama against the businessman Mitt Romney, yawn.

In 2016, we had a candidate offering big change, Donald Trump, who recycled Reagan's slogan.

In 2020, there was no candidate of change, the incumbent President Trump ran against Biden, who had the longest record of serving as a politician in memory.

So, who is the candidate of change? If Vice President Nixon could be come it in 1968, could Vice President Harris do it in 2024? It's hard--but possible. We need better-paid jobs. It's vital to promise that.

But to do it, Harris has to stand out from her boss and argue she will fight for something big. What is it?

Galvanize across the divide

I think Harris courts trouble when she argues she is the president people need. It sounds like boasting. It's much better to choose two alternatives. First, let other people make that case. Taylor Swift even used the term champion. That's an opening for a T-shirt: Like Taylor Swift, I believe Kamala Harris will champion our cause.

But what can Harris herself do? Saying, "I am the champion" doesn't work any more than the slogan "Yes I can" would. How about turning it around as a compliment and include the voters: "We are the champions." There's a song for that... Harris can make the obvious point,

"I am one person. But together, we can change the world. In this election, the country needs everyone to be its champion."