The discount-Obama repeating Clinton’s failed 2016 playbook

In June of 2016, six months before election day, I wrote a column detailing how Donald Trump could defeat Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House. As I explained, a mix of racial anxiety, political alienation and over-reaching identity politics was propelling rural whites and working-class urbanites toward Trump in an act of unanticipated voter retribution.

“Fed up with the preachy do-goodism and blanket-blaming [by] the elite,” I wrote, Trump is “offering a safe space to supporters shut out from increasingly rigid definitions of ‘acceptable’ cultural conversations. Tired of being told what to say and how to think, Trump’s supporters are reclaiming their voice — and publicly committing it to the ballot box.”

Eight years on, I don’t write these words to gloat, but because history looks likely to repeat itself. Two election cycles after Trump’s first upset against a heavily hyped Democrat, the former president could easily triumph again. All of the signs are in place. 

Today, as in 2016, the US is mired in economic uncertainty thanks to the Biden-era inflation Kamala Harris will inevitably inherit. The nascent wokeness and identity overreach of the Obama-era now extends from Hollywood to corporations and, most dangerously, higher education. Cancel culture no longer merely shames, it’s driven some caught in its crosshairs to suicide. Transgender issues now dominate school sports and medical care, while the chasm between left and right is so vast, it almost cost Trump his life. 

Many things are not merely as bad as they were in 2016; they’re worse. And Harris represents everything that’s brought us here. Say what you want about Hillary Clinton — imperious operator, sloppy e-mailer — but she was the most qualified presidential candidate of her generation. A former first lady, secretary of state and US senator, her domestic, foreign and Beltway bona fides were unassailable.

Harris, however, can claim few of Clinton’s markers, yet alone achievements. Her CV is lacking and the only “first” Harris offers is the Asian-American heritage she’s continually downplayed for political expediency. She’s like a discount Obama or fire-sale Clinton — all of the identity but none of the politics. No wonder Michelle and Barack literally phoned in their Harris endorsement.

The worst part about Harris’s brief campaign is how far it’s leaning into the exact type of woke-babble that helped Hillary lose. Even in this age of peak infinity groups, Harris’s use of race- and gender– and sexuality-based supporter networks borders on the obscene. Imagine mega-Zooms of Whites-for-Trump or pro-lifers-for Trump or Trads-for-Trump. The take-downs by big media would make their Hamas-hyping seem tame by comparison. 

Then there’s the left’s near total ban on Harris critique. As with every woke crusade, any dissent must be silenced, every criticism quashed into submission. We do not dare allude to her race or gender — even though Biden himself said he chose Harris as VP because she was female and black. We cannot question her failures on the immigration front; we can no longer even claim Harris was tasked with handling the border crisis in the first place. Any derision is seen as racist or sexist, and to ask “why” or “how” is the incontestable proof of that racism and sexism. 

But woke culture thrives when reasonable people deny their best instincts, and my instincts say Harris is not what’s best for America right now. Let alone the rest of the world. I, too, am a mixed-race and California-born Gen X-er — raised on the same noxious dreck of grievance and entitlement as Harris. I come from the same culture that expects little from people of color and demands even less. I’m onto Harris’ hustle because it could easily have been my own.

But being born a woman or black or Indian are neither achievements or accomplishments. She’s done nothing to earn these totems and deserves little reward for them. Like Harris, I know what it’s like to be a DEI hire and let me tell you — it never ends well.

Eight years ago, I predicted Clinton would lose because her campaign lacked authority and authenticity. There was too much girl power and not enough hard power to defeat a brute like Trump. Imposed and manufactured, Harris’ campaign offers even less legitimacy, let alone authority. I am all for crowning Kamala the candidate if that’s what the Democratic electorate wants. But via the convention in Chicago — not a palace coup.

The conditions that allowed Trump to beat Clinton have been weaponized far beyond their 2016 levels, making Harris — even with her more than $300 million war chest — an uncertain winner. Sure, her campaign still has time to course-correct. But that would require an actual course, which Harris is still yet to deliver.

[email protected]