Unplanned Ascension of Kamala Harris Reflects Frivolous Era

Assist me here. Kamala Harris is the nominee for the Democratic Party in the presidential race? How did that come to be?

And the other candidate? The current president – Joe Biden? He withdrew from the race in a constitutionally correct way, through a somber statement on X, the digital platform formerly known as Twitter. Quite a move. Biden even managed to please Elon Musk in the process.

But why did Joe leave? He never explained. In fact, he stated that he believed his impressive track record in office warranted a second term. If that’s the case, why not let the voters decide?

Biden had approximately 14 million votes in the Democratic primaries, outshining any other candidates. His evident lack of cognitive clarity wasn’t the reason for his departure. He never acknowledged it, and if he had, he would need to clarify how a mentally impaired individual unfit for presidential candidacy could continue to serve as president.

During the debate with Donald Trump that kickstarted his decline, Biden’s vacant gaze and zombie-like grumblings were attributed to just a really bad night.

He claimed he was dropping out of the race because protecting “our democracy” was more important than “personal ambition.” While I agree that Biden permanently retreating to the basement of his Delaware home is beneficial for American democracy, this has been true since day one – so why did he subject us to his personal ambition for three and a half years?

I am an analyst. I don’t predict the future, but I am expected to comprehend why the President of the United States suddenly decides to withdraw from his candidacy. So, I’m going to venture a conspiracy theory, because why not?

I hypothesize that Biden – along with his wife, Dr. Jill, and his advisor, Hunter – all believed he deserved a second term but were sidelined by the two puppeteers secretly controlling the Democratic Party: George Clooney and the New York Times.

However, this still doesn’t explain Harris. She is the vice president, not the alternative candidate. If Biden stumbled, she would automatically assume the presidency but not his primary votes or delegates. The Democrats could have opted for an open convention instead.

They boast a strong lineup, or so we hear. Figures like California’s Gavin Newsom, whose hair alone deserves national recognition, or Hilary Clinton, persistently challenging the glass ceiling. There are others, like Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor of Michigan, who are potentially strong candidates because they are relatively unknown beyond their immediate circles.

Despite the options available, the party settled on the one candidate consistently polling lower than the president, and who, like Biden, struggles with language.

Harris speaks like a teacher struggling to remember her lesson – her words drift away like balloons into the sky. In a DC filled with pretenders and empty personalities, she stands out for her authentic lightness of being.

Her sudden rise has been termed “a coup,” but in reality, it was not. There were no tanks crushing dissenting Biden supporters – and the Democrats have the right to endorse any candidate for the presidency. It’s their party, after all.

However, the quick switch surprised many within the power structure. We know Biden was startled because he required a second tweet following his withdrawal, essentially endorsing “Kamala for, you know, that thing.” We know Harris was taken aback because that’s her default state of mind. We know the Democratic presidential campaign, now under Harris’ command, was bewildered and quickly set off to fabricate a new persona to be known as “Kamala Harris.”

This pristine character had never assumed the title “immigration czar,” never been named “most liberal” in the Senate, never contributed to bailing out criminal offenders, nor advocated defunding the police.

It’s notable that the campaign opted for a Harris devoid of any significant accomplishments – a Harris reminiscent of a bout of amnesia, free from any recollections of her past. Even with the aid of a complicit media, this attempt to replace a replacement is unlikely to gain traction. Those seeking a blank slate might find a better fit with Whitmer. Unfortunately, Harris is too memorable, in her own peculiar way.

Americans are eager to decipher the political ideologies propelling this new candidate. However, her handlers seem keen on keeping her devoid of any firm positions.

Harris’ critics tend to portray her either as an Airhead or a Communist. While these portrayals may intersect, neither truly capture the core of the matter. Harris’ political ideology is technically labeled as “California,” described academically as an “extreme performative endorsement of the latest trends.” It’s politics as a fashion statement – a pastime indulged by celebrities and the affluent.

Her consistent condemnation of Israel, boycotting Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress and holding Israel, rather than Hamas, accountable for the Gaza turmoil, hasn’t affected Israeli policy nor altered events on the ground in Gaza. However, it does earn her favor within the ruling elite.

She heavily emphasizes racial identity, occasionally highlighting her Indian mother’s heritage and at other times emphasizing her Jamaican father’s roots – embodying the ideal woman of many backgrounds.

When, in 2020, Joe Biden declared he sought a running mate of color or different gender, Harris fit the bill. 

In the spirit of current trends in societal segregation, her campaign has organized supporters based on race and gender: “Black Women for Kamala,” “White Women for Kamala,” “Latinas for Kamala,” etc. One fascinating category is “White Dudes for Kamala,” overseen by the iconic Pete Buttigieg. Allegedly, the first speaker was a person of color.

While these categories are intriguing, the latest fads in California are not necessarily embraced in the broader United States. Harris seems cognizant of this fact and has already altered her stances on border funding, a fracking ban, and Medicare for All.

It wouldn’t be surprising if her next support group online is “E Pluribus Unum for Kamala” – she’s a political chameleon navigating unfamiliar territories in non-California America, adapting her colors to blend into the novel landscape.

Despite the unorthodox strategies, they seem to be working. With a candidate who doesn’t fumble in the public eye, Democrats are invigorated. The media has already crowned Harris Coconut Queen of the Universe.

Pollsters report a significant surge in her favor, recouping much of the ground lost by the faltering Biden. It’s quite likely she will surpass Trump and become the next president. Perhaps even more so, as the influential realms of American culture, from Harvard to Hollywood, have directed a deafening Bronx cheer at Trump.

Which leads me back to my original question: Kamela Harris, president? It appears I’ve veered into an alternate dimension, where the rules of probability are non-existent.

I present these facts for your contemplation.

Harris lacks a personal following. Why would she? She wasn’t a rising star. She lacks a circle of trusted advisors to guide her on policy matters – those experts were surrounding Biden, who was initially set to be the nominee before his abrupt exit. Her public persona is somewhat comical, and her personality hasn’t magnetized party members or intellectuals. Sources indicate her staff dread her and flee at the first opportunity. She isn’t closely linked to a particular cause or issue.

She’s not a polished politician. In deep blue California, she underperformed as a vote-earner. She stumbled before the first primary in 2020 when she sought the presidential nomination on her own merits. Expectedly, with her words floating into the ether, she’s a lackluster debater. Tulsi Gabbard’s debate performance against her in 2020 was cringe-worthy – akin to Bambi versus Godzilla in oratory form. Her campaign never recuperated from the drubbing.

Harris is like that feather carried by the wind in “Forrest Gump.” She’s a historical fluke. The notion that she could assume the most powerful position on Earth in less than four months, deciding between peace and war, casually hovering over the nuclear button, fills me with both awe and astonishment at the capriciousness of our era.