AMERICAN politics never ceases to provide the dramatics, and this week has followed that trend closely with the somewhat expected departure of Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee on Sunday.
There had been speculation about his intention to continue in his bid for the presidency amid concerns around his cognitive health, which was confirmed on Sunday, with the current president releasing a statement in which he said he believed it to be in the best interests of both the Democratic Party and the country that he stand down.
In that same statement, he pledged his support for his vice president Kamala Harris – who has since secured the support required from within her party to officially run as a Democratic nominee.
The days following the president’s exit from the race has seen the Democrats take a narrow two-point lead against rival Donald Trump, and appears to have been the refresh the party needed to get ahead of the Republicans in what is one of the most crucial elections in American history, particularly for fundamental human rights.
READ MORE: 'Straight up racism': Nigel Farage panned for Kamala Harris comment
In less than two days, the Harris campaign attracted over $100million in donations – which the Democrats have wasted no time in putting to use – with Harris taking to the stage in the battleground state of Wisconsin on Tuesday evening for her first rally as the official Democratic nominee.
Harris used the rally to land some well-deserved punches on Trump, even correctly likening him to criminals that she prosecuted during her time as a prosecutor in the state of California.
So, with the facts on the table that she appears to be more popular and likely to win than her predecessor, what is the hesitation towards her really about? Does at least some of it have some merit?
Even if it does, with an election of this magnitude before the entire world, in a tight race between Harris and Trump (below) are we really in a position to dissuade people from voting the Democratic nominee? Or will key policy players be her – and the entire world’s – downfall?
American politics has long been a fascination of mine, I am often stuck between the reality that as a system it is farcically broken and the reality that, whether that’s true or not, the biggest power in the world depends on whatever that system produces.
It is responsible for some of the worst things in history, as well as some of the biggest strides in progress since civilisation began.
I visited DC for the first time last year and, as a self-professed politics geek, was fascinated by it.
There is so much to be learned from the history of American politics – lessons that unfortunately the entire world seems hell-bent on repeating, and the Harris campaign needs no hand in highlighting those.
One of Harris’s most uncomfortable subjects will be the ongoing genocide in Palestine, which under Biden’s presidency, has been funded at least in part to the tune of billions of dollars, by the American government.
Biden has been permanently tarnished with the “genocide Joe” label that will no-doubt follow him to the history books, and Harris as vice-president will be right there on the pages beside him.
Her nomination for the Presidency however does allow her to take a different approach, but her refusal to do so could end the dream before it even begins.
US support for Israel has been steadily on the decline for some time following multiple aggressions and the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, though has deteriorated more drastically since their heavy invasion and bombardment of the Gaza Strip that began in October last year.
Almost entering its 10th month, Israel’s most recent aggression in Palestine has seen almost 40,000 Palestinians killed, as well as 88% of schools and more than half of homes destroyed or damaged.
With the International Court of Justice last week finding Israel to be an apartheid state that is illegally occupying Palestine, all eyes will be on the frontrunner for the presidency and whether or not she intends to respect and abide by international law. And with the weight of public opinion mounting against Israel, particularly among younger voters – this really has the potential to make or break her straight out of the gate.
There will be no time for reflection before her stance is to be made clear either, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu due to address US congress today.
READ MORE: Scottish council investment in key Israel arms supplier soars 12-fold
There have been musings that Harris has refused to preside over the session, which could point in the direction that she will be taking a stronger stance against Israeli aggression than the current President, but she doesn’t have much time to nail her colours to the mast – and voters are paying attention.
Though I have valid reservations about Harris (below), most notably around Palestine and decision-making at points in her tenure as a prosecutor in San Francisco, I have to say the discourse from her opposition, although predictable, is already a sorry state of affairs.
Within one day of her intention to run being made public, the Republican Representative for Tennessee Tim Burchett told CNN “one million percent she is a DEI hire” – referring, I assume, to the fact that she is a woman of colour.
It was predictable, in fact as good as guaranteed, that this is the attack line the Republicans would go with, given that it is their intention to roll-back hard won human rights progress. But it feels exhausting to be listening to it in 2024, and shows just how vulnerable progress is - and how much is at stake in this election.
Regardless, the feeling around Harris seems to be one of hope. She has revived the Democratic Party in their desperate hour, and catapulted it in a new direction that seemingly has a majority on board less than a week into her campaign.
READ MORE: Joe Biden quits US election amid health row
I think we can expect to see a much different race to the White House than the one we were initially offered – and given that the initial offering was two older white men yapping about golf and little else – I have to say, I am finally paying attention.
One thing is for certain, come November, we will be faced with either the first woman in the White House, or a convicted felon who’s already been there and is committed to the roll-back of women’s rights.
Two strikingly different realities – on paper, I know which I’d far prefer. I just hope that Harris can live up to her promise of being a woman of progress.
Time will soon tell.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel