Kamala’s Glittering Generalities

W.J. Astore

How to Win the Presidency by Saying Nothing

At a recent campaign event with Oprah Winfrey, Vice President Kamala Harris was given a chance at the end to appeal to undecided voters. This is what she said:

We love our country.  I love our country.  I know we all do.  That’s why everybody is here right now.  We love our country.  We — we take pride in the privilege of being American.

And this is a moment where we can and must come together as Americans, understanding we have so much more in common than what separates us.  Let’s come together with the — the character that we are so proud of about who we are, which is we are an optimistic people.  We are an optimistic people. 

Americans, by character, are people who have dreams and ambitions and aspirations.  We believe in what is possible.  We believe in what can be.  And we believe in fighting for that. 

That’s how — that’s how we came into being, because the people before us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism, is to fight for the ideals of who we are, which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body; freedom to be safe from gun violence; freedom to have access to the ballot box; freedom to be who you are and just be, to love who you love openly and with pride; freedom to just be.  And that’s who we are.  We believe in all that. 

And so, this is a moment where we stand, knowing what we are fighting for.  We’re not fighting against.  It’s what we’re fighting for. 

Now, Harris has had plenty of practice as a public speaker. She knows, as a former prosecutor, how to put together an effective closing statement. This wasn’t it.

Let me see if I can decipher her meaning here. An undecided voter should choose Kamala because:

+ We all love America.

+ United by optimism, we must come together as Americans.

+ Americans are dreamers and we fight for those dreams.

+ We believe in freedom of choice for our own bodies; freedom to be safe from gun violence; freedom to vote; and freedom to love whom we want to love, and be who we want to be.

+ We need to fight for all that.

Ah, the glittering generalities! I hope they convince you fence-straddlers out there that Kamala is THE ONE.

You can (sort of) discern a message here. Kamala is saying vote for me because I’m pro-choice. Because I believe in tighter restrictions on guns. Because I’m against Republican efforts to make voting more difficult. And because I believe in and support the LGBTQ+ community. But she muddies her message with empty words and platitudes.

I can hear my friend telling me that Kamala is doing this deliberately. It’s the strategy of saying almost nothing with as many words as possible. In short, baffle them with BS, don’t try to dazzle them with brilliance. And keep the BS warm and fuzzy. Most people will just hear “love,” “optimism,” “dreams,” “freedom,” and the like. Don’t worry if it sounds vapid or vacuous. Avoid saying anything that critics can seize upon and exploit.

My mother-in-law taught me a great Polish expression that means “Don’t say nothing,” the double-negative being permissible in Polish for emphasis. That really should be Kamala’s campaign slogan, rather than “We’re not going back [to Trump].”

I took “debate & discussion” in high school and also used to grade my students on their oral presentations. If Kamala were my student, I’d mark her down for failing to speak clearly and concisely and for her tendency to avoid answering questions.

Part of being president—and an effective leader—is being a skilled speaker. Presidents, of course, speak to all of us, uniting America for the greater good (at least in theory; work with me here). Kamala Harris has a lot to learn here, unless she is following a “don’t say nothing” strategy by choice, which I find even more objectionable than weak and incoherent speaking.

Being a great speaker doesn’t mean you’ll be a great president. Just look at Barack Obama: fine speaker, mediocre president. But being a weak speaker, a confusing one, is a handicap when you’re trying to persuade Americans to do a difficult thing.

The Resolute Desk of the President is not the place for confused blather and irresolute words.

Coda on Donald Trump: As a speaker, Trump also has serious liabilities, e.g. lying, hyperbole, imprecision, a tendency to resort to insults when he believes himself aggrieved, a strong tendency to focus on himself and his own accomplishments, real or imagined. Trump is occasionally effective by stating blunt truths that most DC types would never risk saying: his strong denunciation of the Iraq War, his confession that America has plenty of killers on the world stage, that U.S. forces remain in Syria for the oil.

As a speaker, Trump lacks core principles. He further lacks humility and wit. The well for him to tap as a speaker is a shallow one that often runs dry when it’s most needed.

Trump’s speaking style in a single word is angry. It resonates with people who are fed up with the system. Harris’ speaking style is, well, it’s hard to sum up in one word. Perhaps vague, or vaguely hopeful. It resonates with people who are largely content with the system.

Will malcontents rule in 2025 (Trump) or the mostly contented (Harris)? Readers, what are your thoughts here?