The Real Danger Within the Democratic Party of a Fundamental Crack-Up
55:34 Share

This podcast is supported by Progressive Insurance. Are you driving your car or doing laundry right now? Podcasts go best when they're bundled with another activity. Like Progressive Home and Auto Policies. They're best when bundled too. Having these two policies together makes insurance easier and could help you save. Customers who save by switching their home and car insurance to Progressive save over $775 on average.

From New York Times Opinion, this is The Ezra Klein Show.

So I'm recording this on Friday, July 5th. As of now, we have not seen Joe Biden's ABC News interview. There is a lot happening. So I am loathe to give a state of play on where the Democratic nomination is at the moment, because by Tuesday, when this comes out, it might be somewhere very different.

But what I can say is as somebody who has been arguing for an alternative path to Biden since February and particularly making the case for an open convention, it has been startling to see so many people come over to this position. And as always, when the conventional wisdom shifts very rapidly, you run the risk of the weak points in it, the flaws, the soft thinking being overlooked.

The person I think making the best argument against some of these pathways has been my colleague and New York Times opinion, Jamel Bowie, who has been making very historically and institutionally and coalitionally grounded arguments for what could go wrong at a convention. So I wanted to have him on the show to talk through his thinking, how it's evolving, the weak points he sees in some of these emergent arguments that I've been making, and see where we end up. As always, my email, ezraklineshow at nytimes.com.

Jamel Bowie, welcome back to the show. Thank you so much for having me. So let me offer a roadmap for this. I want to talk about whether Joe Biden is in shape to govern, which is one of the questions I think people have been batting around. Whether he's in shape to run in 2024 and win, whether he can be replaced and what the downsides of that might be. But let's begin with the question of governing. Do you think Biden is fit to serve right now?

If I'm going to be completely honest, I don't know if I have access to the kind of information that would allow me to make a definitive judgment in that regard. The reporting suggests that he basically has a six-hour window in which he is at peak condition and then needs to rest permanently.

Other reporting suggests that he's had sort of forgetful moments and such. But I'm not even sure that that offers that much of a window into, you know, his capacity to govern. If we're going to judge simply by the record of the administration thus far, I would say that, yeah, he has the capacity to govern. The administration has juggled a lot over the last three years and change. Major pieces of legislation, foreign policy crises,

So on and so forth. And so if you're going to look at simply what has the administration been doing, has it been dropping the ball on critical concerns to both in the country? I don't think it has been. And so Biden seems capable of governing. Is he capable of the performance of governing? I'm not so sure he is. It has been for me one of the difficult cuts to make in evaluating him because there is the administration, right, which can clearly govern.

But of course, that can in some ways obscure what is happening with the president at the center. There's so many people making decisions, so many people working through the information that on the one hand, I think we know he's not making strange or erratic decisions in the way that Donald Trump himself often does and did.

But it's also not clear how much credit to give him in his capacity, Biden, in his capacity personally. On one level, like, Biden deserves credit for all that because that's the normal rules of how we cover this. And on the other hand, it's a little hard to see through all that to the man himself. I think that's fair. I think I might make the observation that that is—

often the case for presidents, right? Eisenhower famously had like a matrix of presidential decision-making. And I'm not going to remember off the top of my head, but sort of the rough outlines were sort of things that were urgent and the president had to handle, meaning they urgent, very important, things that were important, but not urgent, things that were neither urgent nor that important, and things that were urgent, but not particularly important. And sort of so much of the duty of being president is

And of choosing a staff that can help manage all these things is sort of like figuring out which issues go where, who can handle what. And that's really only something a president can do. And so if we're looking at the administration's performance...

And if we are saying to ourselves, this administration seems to be handling the important and urgent stuff quite well, seems to be handling the important but not urgent stuff quite well, and so on and so forth, in the absence of any additional evidence, information, we kind of have to attribute at least that management of issues to Biden. He's

appointed a staff that's been able to handle information and handle situations as they come. And he seems to be able to at least make decisions about when he needs to step in and when he needs to intervene, which really is so much of the job of being president. How do you think about the question of deterioration? One of the things that has been coming on some of the reporting is people saying lapses that we have seen before have become more common in

memory issues, a sort of inability to follow the thread. And we're not just hearing that from inside the administration. There was a Wall Street Journal piece that was sourced among European diplomats and leaders. And they were saying that they had noticed a change in Biden. It had worried them the way he was performing and participating in things like the G7 meeting had seemed like it was different than it had been in the past.

Aging is often a sort of rapid and even exponential process at late ages. Are you personally, I've been trying to ask myself this, are you personally comfortable with the idea of Joe Biden as president for another four years?

I don't know if I am. I'm not someone who thinks that Joe Biden is going to somehow drop dead in the middle of being president. I joke about this, but my sense of who Joe Biden is, is that like if he's elected to another four years or if he serves out another four years, then he will die on January 21st.

2029, you know, the day he's no longer president. He is powered by a pure love of America and pure personal ambition. Maybe the two are conflated in his mind, but so I don't, I don't worry about that. Do I think he has the capacity to continue serving and,

I don't know. My inclination is to say probably not. There'll probably be additional deterioration. He is 81. So over the course of four years, as you say, aging can happen quite rapidly. I'm sure you have seen this. I have seen this. Many of our listeners have seen this. And so the odds that next year, if he's in office or the following year, there's just rapid deterioration in his capacity, even if it doesn't render him infirm and renders him unable to do the job. I think that's a real possibility.

There's another thing in this capacity cut that I've been weighing in my own mind, which is, I think if you dig in to what's implicitly being said about the job of the presidency versus the performance of the presidency, it's that the job of the presidency is to make these high stakes decisions.

Will we stand with Bibi Netanyahu? You know, what will we do if Iran is launching an attack on Israel? Should the White House come out for this bill or that bill? What should it prioritize? And then there's the performance side of it. Communication is part of the job, too. And I mean, I think it's indisputable that Biden has deteriorated tremendously as a communicator, even since 2020.

that he's not persuasive, right? There's all the power of the presidency is a power to persuade that Biden is not a guy you want right now, right?

negotiating with senators in the Oval Office. I don't really think anybody believes he's going to be particularly effective at doing that or, you know, negotiating with foreign leaders. I was surprised in my own reporting over the last week how few Democratic senators have seen him recently, right? And there had been reporting that the number of in-person meetings with members of Congress had gone down in recent years, which might just be he's been focusing on foreign policy. But I was a little surprised to hear that.

Is this sort of cut people are making between performing the presidency, which is a cut I made, and doing the job of the presidency, is that really a fair cut? So, you know, I would say that the distinction there is worth making.

And yet, if you're going to make the argument that Biden has been an able president behind doors, then I think it's also true that his inability to perform the presidency for the public, his inability to sort of go to the public directly and make his case, has...

weakened his behind closed doors presidency, right? That the two things do operate together. They're part of the various levers and mechanisms a president can use to try to achieve their and their party's agenda. And it is likely harmed Biden that he cannot simply go to the American public, right? And make a forthright and persuasive case about inflation to help create a story for Americans to understand why we've had this inflation and what his administration is doing.

So going back some years, the Time-Siena poll has had this question, do you think Joe Biden is too old to be an effective president? In 2020, it was around 35% of people did. Really all year in 2024, and I don't think it was that different in 2023.

Most people, super majorities, you know, 69%, 70% have said he is too old to be an effective president. It's actually sounding to me like you also think that if I'm reading you right, but tell me if I'm not. So if that's true, isn't that reason enough to not run him?

I think that is an interesting way of posing the question because the idea that there is someone who can or cannot choose to run Joe Biden for president, I think, is not the case, right? Like, we don't live in

A party system where political parties have that kind of control of authority or authority over the people that they nominate for the office of the presidency. The only person who can determine whether or not Joe Biden ran again this year was Joe Biden. And his decision more or less sort of shaped the rest of how the party, the Democratic Party, responded.

And if Joe Biden doesn't think he's too infirm, then that sort of settles the question as far as the Democratic Party is concerned. If I back up a bit here, I think part of my intervention into this conversation has been to just insist on thinking this through within the political system that we have and not the one that we want or the one that we imagine we have. You know, maybe I think he's too old. Most Americans think he's too old. But those aren't really the

the relevant actors in terms of the decision of whether a president is going to stand for reelection. So it's actually something I've really appreciated about your commentary on this. I mean, you're, I think it's fair to say, sort of an institutionalist, right? I think you take seriously the institutions of American politics. And I think of myself as that kind of commentator as well. And so it's been interesting to me where we diverge. But one place is on this question of the power of the party. Yeah.

We don't live in the strong party system of Martin Van Buren. But we do live in a system where parties are there and matter. And I've personally been surprised by both the fatalism people felt about this, but also the rapid emergence of party pressure after the debate. So it's true that only Joe Biden really at this point can decide whether he runs again or does not. But do you really think he's not

affected by the signals coming from the rest of the party, right? So I think it was meaningful when members of the House

like Doggett and Grijalva began coming out and saying he should not run again, right? That seemed to me to be an important crack. You're seeing a lot of leaks from his team in a way we haven't seen before. There's a lot more internal administration leaking. Like, I think you should understand that in a way as a party action. The donors who are moving, Biden has, according to Times reporting, been telling some allies that he recognizes he only has a number of days, a number of weeks in which to save his candidacy.

I think in a way you have to have a very low opinion of Joe Biden to say that if key purple state governors and senators and House members are saying he shouldn't do this and the donors are fleeing, that that's not going to enter his calculations. He's going to kind of pull forward on this no matter how unlikely a victory looks for him or no matter what his poll numbers look like.

All that pressure is informal, we'll say, right? It's signals sent to both allies, to the public, to everyone sort of involved. But in the way that the Republican Party of 1872, they could have actually taken specific and concrete measures to remove Ulysses S. Grant from the ticket and nominate someone else. That kind of power doesn't exist anymore within a political party anymore.

And so for as much as there is this real pressure coming from various actors within the Democratic Party and those aligned with the Democratic Party, to my mind, that's almost as much like vindication, right, of like the observation that the parties are just too weak to be able to exert that kind of influence on the president. Now, do I think that Joe Biden, if the call for him to leave the race were to go, right now it's sort of like, it's like a growl, if it were to become a roar, right?

Do I think that he is going to ignore that? I don't think so. I think he is too tied in to the Democratic Party as like his identity at this point. He's too committed to his relationship to this institution to completely disregard that. But my main point is that it's still his decision and he

That's why so much of this reporting, right, is sort of, you know, what is this family saying? What is this closest associate saying? Because they have as much weight as a purple state governor does, for good or ill, right? From my perspective, this is bad. From my perspective, it would be a good thing if American political parties were such that after the debate, Democratic Party elites, the bosses could get together and say, okay, we're not going to run this guy. And he had no choice in the matter. But that's not the world we live in.

Do you think a Biden ticket or a Harris ticket is a stronger ticket for Democrats in November? Man, Ezra, you're putting me right on the spot. Listen, man, you can't make all these good arguments and then, you know. Okay. And I'll answer it too. You can push this back at me. I'm happy to put myself on the chopping block too. Okay.

To the extent that Biden's presence on the ticket is undermining party unity in a real and serious way, I think a Harris-led ticket is...

stronger. That's sort of making the assumption that Harris is able to bring the entire Democratic Party, elected officials, donors, affiliated groups, affiliated individuals in the press, all that stuff right behind her, unified, then I think that is a stronger ticket. I think that

If Harris is at the top, she will have a vice presidential nominee. And the choice of nominee also provides opportunities to send a message to make a kind of electoral case.

that I think could be advantageous to the Democratic Party and can sell this image of this is not a radical ticket. This is not a ticket that's reaching out to transform America. This is a ticket of two moderate politicians who want to stop Donald Trump and want to bring along as many Americans as possible. So assuming unity...

I think a Harris ticket is probably stronger. And what polling we have at the very least suggests that it's no worse. When it comes to making plans, you are the best.

from those delicious barbecues to special birthdays and unforgettable family get-togethers. The same way you plan for those important moments, start planning to protect you and your loved ones from a natural disaster like a hurricane, flood, wildfire, or tornado. Sign up for local weather and emergency alerts, prepare an emergency kit, and make a family communications plan. Get started today at ready.gov slash plan. A public service message brought to you by FEMA and the Ad Council.

I'm Julian Barnes. I'm an intelligence reporter at The New York Times. I try to find out what the U.S. government is keeping secret. Governments keep secrets for all kinds of reasons. They might be embarrassed by the information. They might think the public can't understand it. But we at The New York Times think that democracy works best when the public is informed.

It takes a lot of time to find people willing to talk about those secrets. Many people with information have a certain agenda or have a certain angle, and that's why it requires talking to a lot of people to make sure that we're not misled and that we give a complete story to our readers. If The New York Times was not reporting these stories, some of them might never come to light. If you want to support this kind of work, you can do that by subscribing to The New York Times.

I could give you my case for an open convention and have you poke holes in it, or do you want to tell me your case against it and we can go the other way? What sounds more enjoyable to you? How about I just give my case against it? Go for it. I don't think the argument that has been put out there by some observers that you could...

remove Biden with no particular incident in terms of like his political hit to the Democratic Party and then have an ad hoc process at the convention. I think that's the downside risks of that are actually like very high. The odds that you get a chaotic, chaotic

This contested convention, a convention process that, for one, isn't really designed for what I think people imagine happening here. The odds that you get that, that maybe even is inconclusive, is, I think, a way worse outcome than just having Biden at the top of the ticket.

The delegates to conventions, if we're going on a very micro level, these are not party bosses. This is not 1944 when you have like the boss of St. Louis on the floor hassling people to get Truman on the ticket. This is not a party convention, even in like 1960 or 1964, where you have party bosses and people who represent constituencies and interests and votes and

on the floor, hassling people, making deals, trading, that kind of thing. That doesn't exist anymore. It's the, some elected officials, but it's a lot of just like ordinary people who are dedicated volunteers in like their local parties, their state parties, and they are, they go on behalf of a candidate. And so I think this is important to emphasize that

because no offense to any of these people. They're all great. I've, you know, I've been to conventions. I've talked to people who go. They're wonderful people who are really engaged in sort of like the day-to-day of American democracy. And I have a lot of respect for them. But like, I don't think there's people equipped to do the high stakes negotiating that comes with choosing a presidential nominee. And I think that,

Putting that kind of weight on the process as it actually exists is not going to lend itself well to a kind of orderly or even sort of like only temporarily chaotic decision making that I think people want. I think I think what's more likely to happen is confusion and disarray in a way that does harm the Democratic ticket. The alternative to that, which is Biden steps down from his campaign and

his vice president takes the reins as the nominee of the Democratic Party, I still think has some risk. It's sort of unclear how Kamala Harris will be perceived by the

the general public, but I think has the advantage of because she's elected vice president, because she is his constitutional successor if he were to leave the presidency. Like, all that kind of, like, puts pressure in favor of everyone can kind of get behind this and be unified.

If I had to summarize my view of the risk here, it's that like the more the Democratic Party is perceived to be ununified and in disarray, to use a cliche, the more dangerous that is for the party's November chances.

One thing I do think, well, two things I think are not taken seriously enough. It's simply just what the Republican message is going to be here if there is any kind of disarray. Even if Biden, even if you get the best possible scenario here, if Biden steps down and you get, you know, Harris or whomever,

and everyone's united behind them, the Democratic Party's ready to go. I think the message from the Republicans that like, you know, first, Trump is so dominant that he forced the president out of the race. And second, that can you trust these people to run the country? I think those are two potent messages and it would take a lot of work to push back on them with success.

And so I think where I am at this moment, post-debate, is actually quite agnostic about whether Biden should step down or not. But if that's the choice people are going to make, I'm urging everyone to take the practical stuff very seriously. Do not think of this as, oh, he'll be gone and everything will be magically better. Maybe you raise your odds.

from where they are, but there'll be a whole new set of challenges to tackle once you take that step and be prepared to tackle them and not be caught flat-footed by them. The critique I would make of the Democratic Party with Biden over the past couple of years has been that they've been playing it safe in a way that I think was predictable, but proved to be playing it very unsafe. And the way they were doing this is by denying themselves information. There was no competitive primary.

The thinking there made some sense, right? A competitive primary will weaken an incumbent president. That's typically something that happens to incumbents who are going to lose. So I understand why you don't want that. At the same time, he wasn't doing tough interviews. He wasn't giving press conferences. He was skipping the Super Bowl interview. We had no information about how this guy would perform in public under pressure in uncontrollable situations. And again, just at his age, for anybody, that would be a thing worth finding out.

And then they put this June debate on the board, thinking that he's gonna perform really well and it's gonna really help them in the campaign. And it actually turns out he cannot perform under the lights. And the argument I would make for some kind of open convention over some kind of coronation is that the Democratic Party just needs information it doesn't have, right? I think Harris is underrated, but I don't know if you wanna be reductive and put candidate quality on a one to 10 scale.

If you say she's currently viewed as a five, which I'm not saying is true just for the sake of argument, then

She could be underrated and be a six or underrated and be a nine, and those are very, very, very different conditions. You want to know, to the extent you can, how all these people seem when they really have to perform under high levels of pressure and really have to introduce themselves in an intensive way to the American people. And I think the Democratic Party has become a very orderly party, unlike the Republicans who keep knocking out their speakers and priming themselves up.

The Democrats don't like chaos, but sometimes it seems to me you need disorder to surface information. And, you know, if Democrats want to win in November and also want to, you know, pick somebody they're excited about, they need as much information as they can get. I think that's a really powerful case for a convention of some sort to determine the nominee. And this idea that the Democratic Party has been quite

orderly, is compelling. When I think about discontent with the Democratic Party, especially among younger voters, I do think there's a sense that sort of it's completely calcified and that there's not really much one can do to create different outcomes within it. And so if a convention process would help push back on that,

I think that might be beneficial to the Democratic Party. See, I'll be frank with you, Ezra. There is a mode of thinking and writing about politics that looks at it purely in terms of entertainment, and I just find that so distasteful. And so I've seen arguments for...

And this is not an argument you've made at all, but I've seen arguments for conventions. They're like, oh, it'd be entertaining. It'd be an exciting thing to see. And I'm just sort of like, this is choosing the nominee to be president of the United States. Like, what? But at the same time,

I have made the argument that part of what is harming the Democratic Party in its political strategy is that it does not do enough, and I think this echoes you here, to create the conditions for getting earned media, to put it, like, very mechanically. But, like, to...

create splashes to do things that draw attention and that refocus attention on it and its priorities and so on and so forth. And so knowing that I've made that argument, it does stand kind of in tension with my distaste for the idea of a convention. And I think I have to concede here that like, yeah, if you can have some combination of like orderly with like, you know, an up-for-form disorder, that could be a political asset for a Democratic Party that needs to sort of not just energize its own voters, but

but show the broader public that there's energy there. In addition to one thing this might be valuable for is allowing Democrats to put forth what their vision for the country ought to be, what the vision for the country is, which I've been struck by how little of that we've gotten in this campaign thus far. Like what exactly does the Democratic Party want the United States to look like four years hence?

I think you're right, actually, that it is a bit distasteful. I have in me a certain respect for the systems where the way the leader of the party is chosen is by the people who know the leader of that party really well, right? The sort of more parliamentary systems. But given the one we're in, this question of what is your theory of attention, I think, ends up being really important. And one of the things that I think they've been struggling with, the Democrats, this year is

is that their theory of attention in 2020 and 2024 was the same, which was let Donald Trump control the attention and let Donald Trump be the media strategy. And in 2020, the idea was if everybody's thinking about Donald Trump, well, they don't like Donald Trump. So if they're thinking about Donald Trump, they're going to vote for Joe Biden, which at a critical level proved true.

And in 2024, that was their theory of it again. Biden's campaign over and over made the case that presidential approval ratings and presidential vote were going to decouple here because you didn't really need to like Joe Biden to vote against Donald Trump. But the problem they faced is that as Donald Trump has again sort of absorbed the attention and not in ways you would necessarily think are positive for him, right, in the news every day for criminal cases, right?

It hasn't seemed to hurt him. He's polling better than he ever has before. And Biden has not been effective at retaking attention for his initiatives or for his policies or for his vision. Then the debate happens, which is supposed to be this moment of

people coming face to face with Donald Trump in this deeper way. And they come out feeling better about Donald Trump and worse about Joe Biden. So on the one hand, I think I emotionally am more where you are on this. Like, I don't prefer this as a way of picking presidents. And on the other hand, I think one thing Democrats need to understand as a problem for them right now is they had a theory of attention, right?

which is let Donald Trump take it and repel the electorate. And that theory is failing. And they need some other theory, but I don't understand. I actually myself do not understand what the alternative theory of attention under Joe Biden would be.

Whereas I think sort of an argument for all the other candidates, Harris on down, is that we don't know how it would play out, but all of them would change the attentional dynamics of the election. Like if Biden stepped aside tomorrow, Donald Trump would spend the next two months trying desperately to break into a news cycle.

I think that's right. Simply standing back and letting Trump drown is not a viable strategy, right? This is the thing that Democrats have been struggling with the past couple years as well, that just they get no credit for anything. There's a perception that the Biden administration has just not done anything in office, right?

And I think that owes itself a lot to the fact that the administration, although it sounds like they're not holding events and they're doing all sorts of things, but they don't really break through into the public consciousness in a way that would at least...

remind people, tell people that things are happening. I think when the IRS announced that it collected $300 billion from tax cheats, $300 billion in taxes that had gone unpaid, I'll be fair, then I think Biden should have had a press conference where he presented the American people with a $300 billion check. I think that would have been silly. I

But it would have created some attention and would have grabbed the imagination a little bit. Yeah, they don't have real showman instincts over there right now. No. I think for part of the reason you described, right, a sense of distaste for it. I've heard reporting that there were discussions around the stimulus, the COVID stimulus when Biden was in office, that they should try to do more of what Donald Trump did and send these checks that really emphasized COVID.

that Biden was president and Joe Biden himself was personally sending you a check and that Biden himself did not like that idea, that he felt that was a bit unseemly. And morally and ethically, I am with him on that. And politically, I am not with him on that because we're at the risk of now, I think, too much agreement. Let me have us pick into ways that the open convention could go wrong. Okay.

And one that you've spoken about, one that others have spoken about, is what if it ends up feeling illegitimate? Either who chose is illegitimate or who they chose is illegitimate. They didn't end up choosing Kamala Harris. And people are pissed maybe. Maybe it's young voters. Maybe it's Black voters. Talk me through some of the things that actually could go wrong. The Democratic Party, if it goes in this direction, is going to need to think very carefully about how to manage this.

Yeah, I think that to me is the big, as I've said before, that is the big risk that the outcome out of there is perceived as illegitimate and perceived as illegitimate because it basically sidelines everything.

Kamala Harris. I don't think one should take lightly the fact that she was on the ticket. She was the voters designated choice, 81 million voters designated choice for who should take over in the event that Biden was no longer able to. And that is real Democratic legitimacy. It may not be the same time that you get through a party primary, but it is real legitimacy that no other candidate would have. And so I do think that a process that

produce someone other than Harris runs the risk of, I'm not saying angering all Black voters or anything, nothing like that. But it is undoubtedly true that Harris is on the ticket in part because she does represent sort of like Biden's close alliance with many Black voters in the Democratic Party who delivered him the nomination in 2020.

and kind of sidelining her, muscling her out, however you want to put it, could be quite alienating. And I think people would be asking like legitimate questions about why. Like why, essentially, why are you having this process when the vice president is right there? And you'd really be relying on discontented Democrats to just fall in line. And I don't think you want that. I don't think you want discontented Democrats to just fall in line. I think you want everyone to be enthusiastic about the choice. What is your explanation and assessment of

of why the Washington political view of Harris fell so much between 2020, when she gets named to the ticket, and doesn't perform badly in the election or anything, right? Doesn't have huge mistakes or gaffes or problems. And, you know, call it January of 2024. What happened in the sentiment around Harris? And do you think it was fair? Yeah.

I find this very interesting. You might even say strange because you're right. During the 2020 campaign, Harris does not perform poorly. She performs pretty well. She performs basically sort of like what you would expect a capable, confident vice presidential nominee to perform. She's not doesn't take away from the ticket, does not harm the ticket and is an able, you know, surrogate for Joe Biden.

It's true that her primary campaign came to a premature end, but I don't see that. I've encountered many people who see that as sort of like this positive of her political skills, that she didn't make it into voting, therefore she's bad at politics. But if that's going to be our...

measure of whether or not someone is good at politics. I'm like, how did Joe Biden become president? Right? Yeah, exactly. How is Joe Biden's 2008 campaign? Right. How was his 1988 campaign? I find this so weird, like this unbelievable memory hauling of Joe Biden's 08 campaign, which like got nowhere in the primaries. But he's still good vice president and a good 2020 candidate. And if you want to go down the list, right, of like the people who've been president over the last 40 years, you

Reagan did have a pretty strong 76 campaign, but he ended up losing. H.W. Bush lost his 1980 primary and was by no means like an inspiring figure, right? This measure of political skills as being solely tied to your performance in the presidential primary, I just don't think holds up.

Now, since she became vice president, there are these early stories about her office, about, you know, disorganization or conflict. Those have subsided. And it really, by all appearances, seems that the office has run very smoothly, very tightly, that she's been an able ally to Biden over the last year and a half or so since really the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs. She's been on the stump speaking on abortion rights and has been very good at this. So I don't, I mean...

If you're looking at just like the evidence, it's like I don't there's no evidence that Kamala Harris is some uniquely bad politician. The other data point people will point to is her 2010 race for California attorney general. But like she ran in like the worst year for Democrats of the 21st century so far against the L.A. district attorney. So it's sort of like, I don't know.

Did she underperform the state ticket? Yeah. Does that tell as much when the following cycle she performed just as well as the rest of the ticket? Then I don't know if it does. Okay. So having said all of that, my sense of why people are nervous about Kamala Harris is a couple of things. The first is that during her 2020 campaign, or at least during 2019, she seemed to display some of the instinct that has hurt Democrats in the past, which is like being a little too afraid of

I'm just forthrightly putting out like what her vision of the country is and sort of putting out these like kind of piecemeal neoliberally policy proposals, which just like don't fire anyone up and seem to display bad instincts. I think she's pretty good on the stump, but.

How do I put this? She's like, she's a little corny. As a politician goes, I don't think this is a bad thing. I like corniness. I feel like politicians who win are corny typically. Everybody loves cringe. That's why it's cringe. Ezra, this is exactly right. But I think that that rubs off at least on some people the wrong way. And then this is not last or least.

The fact that she's a Black woman, right? And I feel like this is like the unspoken thing in all of this and that no one wants to just say outright. We think that a Black woman would not be able to win a national election. And I would prefer that if folks do think that, that you should just say it until we can kind of debate that and like think that through openly. But I do think that's behind some of the nervousness. My own view is that

In an election cycle where there's a lot of discontent and people are looking for something new, I don't think that that's a debility for a Harris ticket.

Not saying that this is going to necessarily drive tons of people to the Democratic ticket, but it is a true novelty that might be more asset than liability. But I do think that race and gender are lurking here, right? The last Democrat to lose to Donald Trump was a woman, Hillary Clinton. And there is fear of repeating that with another woman and with a Black woman in particular.

I agree with you that that is a huge part of what people are actually debating here without often saying it aloud. And the way I would frame it, and I'd be curious if this framing resonates for you, is that Harris was both helped and then wounded by a fairly rapid change in the Democratic Party's theory of politics that happened between 2020 and 2024.

When she's picked the ticket, it's the post-George Floyd moment. There's a sense that the Democratic Party is this rising multi-ethnic demographic play. The demographic lines, you could just look at them on a chart, and the multi-ethnic coalition was rising. And then there's this sort of whole backlash to wokeism and back—or what gets called wokeism—and backlash to this sort of moment in politics where

And Harris, who I think was in part for the Biden campaign, a way of having someone on the ticket who could represent that moment and also be sort of a bridge that Biden would build to the next part of the Democratic Party and she could take the baton, to mix a metaphor.

That's no longer really believed. Like, Harris's pick is part of a theory of politics that did not quite work out. And now, like, explicitly or implicitly, the view in the Democratic Party is you run moderate white people from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, that kind of thing.

or really extraordinarily talented politicians like an Obama, or people sometimes talk about a Warnock, but that the thing that propelled her in the first place has ceased to be the dominant theory of politics in the party.

I think that's a really astute analysis of what has happened with Harris. And I think I agree with it. I think that especially Trump's performance with Black and Latino voters after 2020 really spooked Democrats quite a bit. And there's been this ongoing conversation about like what to do about that, how to address that. So if you're going to make a case for Harris, given that sort of what the theory of winning appears to be, I think that first of all,

you have to recognize this sort of like running moderate whites has not been a perfect solution for winning in the Biden years thus far. Not every candidate who fits that bill has won. Candidates who do not fit that bill have won. We just mentioned Warnock, but he's a great talent as well, but it's still quite extraordinary that he is one of the senators from Georgia right now. So this is for listeners who may be more on the left. This is, I feel like they're not going to want to hear this, but yeah,

One of the criticisms of Harris from the left has always been about the fact that she has this criminal justice background. She was prosecutor turned general, quite carceral in her thinking, all those sorts of things. And to my mind, that has always been kind of her great political asset. Her having been, you know, the chief law enforcement officer of California is a political asset when it comes to reaching out to moderate voters. And, you know,

It's not hard at all to think of a message for the Harris campaign in the wake of Dobbs that is all about speaking forthrightly about the consequences of Dobbs for violence against women. Like, all that stuff is, like, those are real political assets for Harris. I'm not sure how you...

counteract the feeling that moderate white candidates are sort of your best bet. I'd only observe that politics is just not that mechanistic, you know? You know this, that things can be very unpredictable. I agree with this. People have their intuitions and they should not disregard their intuitions, but things can work out in practice that you wouldn't have imagined actually working out in your theories. That, I think, is some of the story of Joe Biden. Again,

And Biden, having been in politics for so long and being such an old hand, I think obscures how genuinely strange it is that he became president. That a guy who, although, you know, well-loved by Democrats, well-liked, well-respected, at the twilight of his career, doing something that's genuinely difficult in American politics, which is defeating an incumbent president.

And I think it's important to take seriously that like unlikely things, things that seem unlikely happen quite frequently in politics. And so maybe it's the case that Kamala Harris is her gender and her race are these insurmountable obstacles for her. But who knows? This is not something I think we can actually predict. And I think that as a politician, Harris has enough assets. And if the Democratic Party does unite behind her,

that there's no reason she couldn't win. This podcast is supported by The World As You'll Know It, a podcast about the forces shaping the future.

This season goes inside the unprecedented technological revolution underway as the world begins to replace fossil fuels with clean energy. Meet the scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs taking on this challenge. Go behind the scenes of new technologies like green hydrogen, carbon capture, and next-generation batteries poised to remake the world in the face of climate change. The world as you'll know it, The Great Rebuild, is available now.

So Jim Clyburn, the congressman from South Carolina, co-chair of Joe Biden's 2024 campaign, he's been very clear that he supports Biden, that if Biden drops out, he supports Harris. But he was asked about this on CNN. And I want to play his comments to you because I thought they were actually pretty important.

And so you can actually fashion the process that's already in place to make it a mini primary. And I would support that. Absolutely. We can't close that down and wish to open up everything for the general elected. And I think that Kamala Harris would acquit herself very well in that kind of a process. But then it would be fair to everybody. So all of the other governors who may be interested, and there's some

that I would be interested in hearing from as well. Because if she were to be the nominee, we need to have a running mate. We need a strong running mate. And so all of this would give us a good opportunity not just to measure up who would be good to be at the top of the ticket, but also who would be best in second place. So what I understand him as saying there, and he talks at different points in this interview about other pieces of it,

The DNC could create what he calls a mini primary. There could be town halls. There could be interviews on CNN and MSNBC or who knows, Fox News, the network news shows. They could do all kinds of things, debates, right? I mean, the DNC runs debates and knows how to do that.

But his argument is that you could build something that would give people information beforehand. Then we could see who's doing how well in the polls. We could see who's getting which kinds of endorsements. Then obviously it actually hit the real convention and there'd be these big speeches. And that if you did that, on the one hand, if Harris is going to win, it would make that win feel fair and legitimate. She would have beaten these other contenders. She'd have a good idea of who would be good in the number two slot for her.

And, you know, presumably even if she doesn't, then at least there's been, you know, a real process. What do you think of that? You know what? That sounds okay to me. Let it not be said that I won't change my mind. That sounds totally reasonable to me. What are we going to do for the rest of this podcast then, man? I don't know.

If the desire here is to be fair and give everyone a fair shake and not create the sense that it's just a done decision by a handful of party elites, which, as I had suggested before, I have no particular problem with, then I think that makes a lot of sense. Especially if – one of the arguments I have made is that I think –

Because the Democratic coalition, you know, there are fractures in it, right? And so a process that risks creating disunity that will not be settled, right?

during the course of the campaign or will likely not be settled during the course of the campaign, I think is one where people should tread lightly. Even if I think Clyburn's idea has real merit to it, that is always the application. I'm not sure how you navigate it. I'm not sure how Democrats, if this were to happen, right, if you were to have this open process and

And let's say Harris performs great. Let's say it turns out she was like an eight in terms of like political skill, like just a totally and yet nervous Democrats go for a white candidate who just isn't as skilled on the stump. Maybe seem like they might be, but turns out not quite as good as you would have liked. If that happens, that's a real problem. And I'm not sure how you resolve that.

It's still a problem, especially given the larger context in which it's happening, which is right, the Supreme Court going after affirmative action, the attacks on DEI. It would feel like the Democratic Party basically recapitulating things happening nationwide in political life. I think this question of irresolvable discontent is a really profound one for this election because when I think about the different pathways here, I see a real risk of it in all of them.

If Joe Biden keeps running, despite all of these calls for him to step aside, despite 75 percent of voters saying he's too old for the job, if the party closes ranks around him, which as much discontent as there is right now in private, relatively few elected Democrats have come out for him to step aside and he loses. I think the fury is going to be actually quite overwhelming. I think people aren't prepared for.

for what a breach that will be between the party and its base. I mean, the anger I get right now in my own email of Democrats who feel they're being gaslit by their party, being told this was, you know, 90 minutes versus three and a half years or a whole career, like they're furious about it. So if the party runs Biden, I think this is an issue of discontent because, you know, how could you do this, right? Like everybody can see this is going to go badly. If the party...

coalesces around Harris really rapidly, I can imagine discontent from people who feel, look, we never got a chance to vote on her. I don't think she's a strong candidate, right? She was not able to answer these questions people had about her. And then if she loses, I think that will really explode too. And then as you say, there's the open convention version of discontent, which is that the open convention doesn't feel legitimate to people. Managing the possibility for maybe not schism, but

But anger and a feeling that we were not listened to in every one of the paths Democrats have now seems really quite tricky to me. I think you're right to sense the real danger within the Democratic Party of like a fundamental crack up.

Part of what has been interesting about Biden, the choice of Biden and the Biden presidency, is that it has, I wouldn't say papered over divisions within the Democratic Party, but sort of the desire to get Trump out and to keep Trump away has, through Biden, really kept rival factions, wings of the party, kind of at bay. But

This situation has the real possibility of tearing the whole thing apart. I think you're right that if Biden stays in and loses, that's going to be a kind of injury to the Democratic Party from which I'm not sure it could actually recover.

That feels like the kind of thing that just tears a political party apart, like straightforwardly. Maybe it didn't happen if there's 68 of the Democratic Party that emerges out of 68 is, and after out of Nixon's victory is much changed and has like significant divisions. But this feels on that order at the very least. And then if he does drop out,

Whoever is chosen, if they lose, that's a whole other set of recriminations. It's just a bad situation. I don't know. This is where I'm finding myself as like a political observer. It's an unprecedented, terrible situation. In some other world, Joe Biden is 15 years younger, you know, and this isn't an issue. But in this world, he isn't.

And so there are a bunch of suboptimal choices that we've been discussing. I'm skeptical of the open convention thing, but there's downsides to just going, as you mentioned, to just going straight ahead with Harris, even though there may be the least there. There's real downsides and issues there, separate and apart from however her performance might be in a general election. And there are obvious downsides with sticking with Biden. And I think what makes this so hard and so contentious is

is that there's no clear answer. You're really just making a leap of faith here. You just sort of have to make a decision and then, you know, stick with that decision. I'm trying to think of that line Slim Charles has in The Wire about going to war on a lie. This wouldn't be going to war on a lie. But once you've committed, then you're committed. You have to stay it through. You have to carry it through. And I think that's the situation Democrats are in. You're a history guy.

Do you find there to be something eerie this year about the Democratic convention being in Chicago, the possible first serious, even open convention since the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago that was such a catastrophe in a year when the sitting president decided not to run again?

that it led to the end of open conventions in the modern era. Like, isn't there something strange about the location that this might all play out? Yeah, no, it's eerie. It's weird. It's very strange that we are...

You know, we're not recapitulating 1968. Like, it's a very different world, a very different set of situations, very different political party. And yet there are these echoes, there are these vibrations, you might say, that are weighing on the situation of an unpopular war abroad.

A divisive president, incumbent president who may very well be declining to stand for reelection, a contentious perhaps convention, a vice president that people are very suspicious about and uncertain of. All of these elements are

are there. And it's very strange. And I have no like great grand historical insight here other than to say, it's really weird. It's really strange. And the comfort we should all take is that history does not actually repeat itself. The past is the past. And whatever happens at this Chicago in 2024 is going to be shaped by the particular dynamics and forces at work in this political environment, in this world.

I think that's a good place to end. Always our final question. What are three books you'd recommend to the audience? Since I just sort of alluded to Hubert Humphrey, Johnson's vice president in 68, I'm going to recommend first a great book, Into the Bright Sunshine, Young Hubert Humphrey and the Fight for Civil Rights. It's by Samuel G. Friedman. And it is basically a biography of Hubert Humphrey up until the 1948 Democratic Convention when he maneuvers with the Americans for Democratic Action to fight

put a civil rights plank, a strong civil rights plank into the Democratic Party platform in the 48th convention. This is one of sort of the real pivotal moments of American political history. It does, in the book, kind of details the kind of changes happening in especially American cities within democratic politics through the New Deal into World War II that kind of produce both

both a style of liberalism that Humphrey exemplifies in activist movement, exemplified at the time by A. Philip Randolph and other figures, and how this comes together to produce this major change that fractures the Democratic Party at the time, but ends up transforming American politics. Great book. You'll come away with real appreciation for Humphrey. I did. So there's that. A second book,

is Wide Awake, The Forgotten Force That Elected Lincoln and Spurred the Civil War. This is about the Wide Awakes, a kind of quasi-military force of young men who were ardent Lincoln partisans in the 1860 election. And it's a book very much about the Republican Party of that era and its sort of partisan... The Republican Party has like a partisan organization as a party. And it's a book

And it's by John Greenspan, and it's a lot of fun to read. And if you, like me, are just a fan of 19th century American politics, you will enjoy this book. And then for a third book, this is a little, I'd say, like left field of these two books, which are these two previous books, which are very much about party politics. But I read...

Stephen Hahn, a historian, his new book, Illiberal America, which stretches back to America's, the country's colonial origins to the present to think through sort of like the illiberal political tradition in American life. It's wide ranging and very interesting and worth reading. Jamel Bowie, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

And special thanks to Sonia Herrero.

Watch Team USA during the Olympic Games with Xfinity Mobile. Stream every record-breaking moment with fast Wi-Fi on the go. Get the fastest connection to Paris with Xfinity. Proud partner of Team USA. Learn more at Xfinity.com slash Team USA. Restrictions apply. Available in select areas. Xfinity Mobile requires Xfinity Internet.