Well-known Republicans support Kamala Harris for president
The Harris campaign team has made clear its support from Trump opponents and launched the group “Republicans for Harris”.
There is not much agreement, but few dispute that this is a pivotal year for American politics. Rule books are being rewritten or simply thrown out the window on a weekly basis.
This year, the rule of party officials has returned after decades of being overshadowed by those who vote in primaries. It’s an important step that, if it takes hold, could ironically lead to a more smoothly functioning nomination system. Of course, well-oiled machines aren’t necessarily democratic or responsive. That’s the trade-off.
Democratic Party leaders, their donors, and their supporters on opinion pages were very strategic in their attempt to force President Joe Biden to abandon his campaign. At least in the short term, and possibly the long term, Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has disrupted former President Donald Trump’s campaign and is now about 3% ahead of Biden.
How Kamala Harris flipped the script
She capitalized on the momentum by flipping the script from a party dependent on primary voters to one willing to overcome voters’ expressed preferences in favor of taking the lead. This time, it worked because there were no perceived losers in the party’s constituencies and a change in optics flipped the script on age.
Of course, by definition it is not particularly democratic for party leaders to overturn a result that reflects the opinion of millions of voters in the primaries. But at least in the dynamics of this election, it has proven strategic. This raises age-old questions in American politics. How do parties best choose their presidential candidates? To give them the best chance of winning, or to best represent the views of those who vote in the primaries?
Look in any book on American politics. The purpose of interest groups is to influence policy. The purpose of political parties is to win elections. Of course, the way to win elections is through policy. But parties basically exist to get their people in office.
In presidential election years, national parties gain in importance. The flagship event is the party convention, whose ostensible purpose is to nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates and agree on a party platform. Skirmishes over the platform are becoming increasingly rare. Plenary battles for the nomination are a thing of the past.
Party conferences are about gathering the troops, not serious party business
Party conventions are less about serious party business and more about a rallying point for supporters. The Republican convention in Milwaukee took on this challenge. After switching to Harris, the Democrats had an even more successful pep rally.
Until 1968, state party conventions chose delegates largely through state conventions, which were the domain of party professionals. The first direct primary was held in Wisconsin in 1903. Over the years, more and more states opted for this approach, involving party loyalists and subjecting candidates to a series of tests. Of course, this could mean that party professionals lost control at the expense of amateurs with political agendas.
Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination in 1968 without running in a single primary. Antiwar activists were furious that the process was controlled by people they viewed as backroom party operatives, and the Chicago convention was a disaster. Richard Nixon won the subsequent election overwhelmingly. Then the Democrats overcompensated by massively increasing the number of delegates selected through primaries. The amateurs triumphed, nominated an unelectable candidate, George McGovern, and were again soundly defeated in 1972.
This time is different. There is no doubt that the Republican Party’s nomination and campaign process during the Trump era has been completely focused on the candidate. There are few, if any, party professionals in the room. They have long been asked to leave or have done so on their own initiative. They have staked everything on Trump’s personality. What was once an advantage in the campaign is becoming a significant liability.
Now, with US Representative and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former President Barack Obama and Democratic Party insiders confident they can take the reins, things could change again. Who would have predicted any of what has happened in this election cycle?
William Lyons is professor emeritus of political science and associate director of the Institute of American Civics at the Howard Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs at the University of Tennessee. He has also served as chief policy officer for Knoxville mayors Bill Haslam, Daniel Brown, and Madeline Rogero. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Institute of American Civics or the University of Tennessee.
