By Tu’Che Kapone
To analyze why Kamala Harris lost the 2024 Presidential eelection to Donald Trump is, at heart, an exercise in dissecting the pathology of a political system that rewards hollow ambition, sidesteps principle, and neglects the working masses. Harris’s defeat to a man who epitomizes America’s basest impulses—racism, militarism, and unbridled corporate greed—might seem puzzling, but it’s perfectly logical. It’s an indictment not only of her failures as a candidate but also of the Democratic Party’s ongoing commitment to the neoliberal order. No matter how Harris might have sought to repackage herself, she remains a creature of the political establishment: unelectable because she is fundamentally unwilling to confront the economic and social conditions that impoverish, oppress, and anger Americans
The Manufactured Image of Kamala Harris: An Exercise in Political Theatre
Kamala Harris, it turns out, is no political enigma—she’s exactly what she appears to be: a well-groomed member of America’s political elite, attuned to the needs of corporate sponsors but utterly tone-deaf to those of ordinary people. When she stepped onto the political stage in 2019, she was instantly hailed as a “progressive,” yet her career paints a vastly different picture. As California’s “top cop,” she enforced policies that disproportionately punished the working-class poor and communities of color, locking up parents of truant children, neglecting to prosecute police officers who killed Black civilians, and zealously enforcing drug laws that have devastated Black and Brown communities. Her progressive “rebranding” was as transparent as it was predictable—a feeble attempt to mimic the rhetoric of actual progressives without making even the slightest commitment to real change.
But this is par for the course in a political system that rewards style over substance. Harris’s script, carefully crafted by the consultants and image-makers of the Democratic Party, tried to sell us an image—a clever facade aimed at appealing to younger, disillusioned voters. Yet, like every other mirage in the liberal desert, it evaporated under the harsh light of scrutiny. For the average American worker, Kamala Harris offers little more than vague promises of “equity” and “progress,” paper-thin concepts to mask the absence of any meaningful change. Margaret Kimberley once noted that the U.S. system thrives on making politicians seem like benevolent saviors, while they pursue the same policies of oppression and imperialism. Harris, unfortunately, is a quintessential product of this system.
Political Skill or the Lack Thereof: A Study in Mediocrity
Harris’s political skills, like her policies, are engineered for mass consumption but don’t hold up under closer examination. In her public appearances, she often seemed lost in her own platitudes, struggling to deliver lines that didn’t quite match the pressing concerns of the American public. Her rhetoric sounded like it was written by focus groups rather than driven by any personal conviction. Such incoherence is politically dangerous in an age where authenticity—whether real or imagined—holds serious currency. In contrast, Donald Trump’s vulgar populism speaks to a very real anger among a significant portion of the American electorate, anger that Harris’s brand of polished elitism cannot even begin to touch. The problem here isn’t just that Harris lacks charisma; it’s that she lacks authenticity and conviction. Her failure to empathize with ordinary people mirrors her inability to think beyond the technocratic, neoliberal framework she represents.
A Vision for the Powerful, Not for the People
One could generously assume that a candidate for the highest office might bring a substantive vision to the table—particularly in times as fraught as these. Yet Harris offered no such vision, only a loosely patched quilt of establishment-approved buzzwords. Hers was a vision that prioritized the perpetuation of American empire abroad and capitalist stability at home, with no tangible plans for workers, tenants, or students drowning in debt.
Let us not pretend, as the pundits do, that her policie proposals fell short due to mere “strategic” oversight. The Democratic Party’s strategy is as intentional as it is predictable: pacify the masses with the language of “equity” and “representation” while offering policies tailored to the whims of the corporate class. Ajamu Baraka has long criticized this tactic, arguing that Democrats, Harris included, uphold a politics of “managed dissent”—never pushing too hard against the status quo, always maintaining their allegiance to capital, regardless of the suffering it inflicts on millions. Harris is no exception. Her so-called vision was simply the neoliberal consensus wearing a friendlier mask.
Principles as Political Afterthoughts
Then there is the issue of principles, or rather the glaring lack thereof. Harris’s career is a study in political expediency, a series of pivot points engineered to keep her in the good graces of those who matter—the donors, the lobbyists, the corporate class. Healthcare reform? Harris briefly flirted with “Medicare for All” before retreating to the safety of market-driven incrementalism. Climate action? She speaks the language of climate change without the commitment to the Green New Deal or anything that might inconvenience her corporate backers.
For Harris, consistency was an obstacle in her campaign, not an asset. Her approach was to flow with the shifting winds of public opinion, unburdened by ideological conviction. This lack of principle didn’t go unnoticed by the voters, who rightly recognized that Harris’s “progressivism” was as shallow as it was manufactured. Her flip-flopping isn’t some tactical misstep; it’s the symptom of a politician who sees principles as disposable, a mere inconvenience to be adjusted as needed.
Democratic Elitism: The Arrogance of the Out-of-Touch
The Democrats’ brand of elitism is all too familiar—a haughty dismissal of the working-class grievances that they view as relics of an unenlightened past. For the average American struggling under stagnant wages, skyrocketing housing costs, and unaffordable healthcare, Harris offered little more than empty symbolism. While her party scoffed at Trump’s “deplorables,” they simultaneously championed policies that ensured these same “deplorables” remain exploited, abandoned, and embittered. The Democratic elite, including Harris, cannot fathom that their indifference has driven many into the arms of a demagogue who at least recognizes their anger, even if he exploits it for his own gain.
The Democratic Party’s reliance on corporate funding and its loyalty to the same neoliberal policies that created today’s economic inequality exemplify the arrogance of a ruling class profoundly disconnected from the masses. Harris’s indifference to structural reform was no accident—it was the logical outcome of a political class that serves not the people, but the banks, the defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical giants.
Neoliberal Wars Abroad, Economic Wars at Home
It would be remiss not to mention the Democrats’ unswerving commitment to America’s global empire, a commitment that Harris shares. Whether it’s allocating billions to the military-industrial complex or justifying U.S. interventions in every corner of the globe, Harris’s foreign policy mirrors the hawkish stance of her predecessors. These endless wars benefit only a handful of defense contractors while draining public resources that could have been invested in healthcare, education, or infrastructure. Ajamu Baraka has spoken frequently on this point, arguing that both parties serve imperialism at the expense of their own citizens.
At home, Americans are left to suffer the economic consequences of a perpetual war economy. With inflation climbing, wages stagnant, and job security a distant memory for many, Harris’s establishment-aligned agenda offered no solutions, only platitudes. As the country teeters on the brink of stagflation, the Biden administration’s tepid reforms appear laughable in the face of the structural issues gripping the American economy.
The Path of Least Resistance
Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump was not 6he result of bad luck or strategic missteps. It was the inevitable consequence of a politician—and a party—who lack the courage, conviction, and vision necessary to address the profound crises facing American society. To borrow from Marx, the Democrats, like Harris, seem committed to being the “moderate faction of capital,” the managers of a failing empire who lack even the pretense of serving the people.
Harris’s inability to challenge the neoliberal status quo is a betrayal, not only of her constituents but of all those struggling under the weight of capitalism and imperialism. And as long as the Democratic Party remains ensconced in its elitist bubble, they will continue to lose—while the people, left voiceless and disenfranchised, grow angrier with every passing year. The tragedy of Harris’s loss is that it signals the triumph not of populism but of despair, a fitting outcome for a system that has chosen to ignore the pleas of the people it purports to represent.
Weaponized Information 
Leave a comment