Kamala Harris and Tim Walz celebrate during the final day of the convention. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
My priors going in to the Democratic Party Convention, as many of you remind me below, were not exactly hopeful. It had been a swoon of relief to see Joe Biden’s assisted career suicide at the hands of Dr Pelosi. But the swift, frictionless, instant coronation of Harris rattled me. She was, it seemed pretty obvious, the weakest of the possible alternatives, tarred by her far-left positioning in 2019 and 2020, by her terrible vice-presidency (the lowest approval rating ever for a veep), by her execrable managing skills (92 percent staff turnover in three years!), and a series of public appearances where she came off at times like Stuart Smalley in drag.
What I missed was a wave of sub-rational exuberance among previously dejected Democrats, liberated from having to defend the obviously indefensible. The chance of defeating Trump was made even more “joyous” by her being “a black woman.” Harris’ favorables went up in a near-vertical line. Her selection of Walz deepened the base’s love for her. And for a couple of weeks there, we had a real mass psychological event as an alternative future to Trump shimmered suddenly into view.
The MSM instantly switched their previously brutal coverage of Harris’ serial failures to North Korean-style worship. (“Gwen Walz, the Coolheaded, Ultracompetent Political Spouse” from the NYT was my fave.) They kept talking about “joy” — and they sure seemed to be feeling it. The convention itself — starting with the too-old president being broadcasted too late, juiced by the Obamas, and then giving us a glimpse of the super-not-weird coach veep who nonetheless seemed to have binged on Adderall — was among the more successful in recent times.
Even as my own life was a bit of a grief-strewn blur, I dutifully watched each night, and the impression I got, in stark contrast with the GOP, was a return to political normality. This was a party still fond of its former leaders, even the ancient ones, and upbeat, cheerful, smiling. The GOP is indeed a weird and narrow cult in comparison. But none of this prepared me for Harris’ acceptance speech. It was the third real hurdle — after clearing the field of rivals and picking Walz — to prove her mettle. I had severe doubts.
And I was completely wrong.
I don’t know who crafted or wrote the speech, but it was masterful. For the first time, Harris carried a modicum of real authority in her party and in the country. She was the Dems’ last resort, and she seemed to realize this gave her an opening to recast herself and dare the rival factions — and accomplished governors — to challenge her. And the message she gave was back to 2008. This was an Obama-style speech.
To begin with, it was marbled with an unforced, proud patriotism:
On behalf of everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth, I accept your nomination to be president of the United States of America ... You can always trust me to put country above party and self ... We are the heirs to the greatest democracy in the history of the world.
I see Harris primarily as a second-generation American, the child of recent immigrants.I’m not disputing her “blackness” as it were — any more than I would Obama’s. But the theme of the speech was the often unheralded successes of non-white immigration and female empowerment, rather than another lament about unending “white supremacy” and “the patriarchy.” The words “race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity” were strikingly absent. There was less fear of Trump and more contempt.
Here’s a story of a non-white woman’s pluck and self-confidence:
My mother was a brilliant, five-foot-tall brown woman with an accent. And as the eldest child — as the eldest child — I saw how the world would sometimes treat her. But my mother never lost her cool. She was tough, courageous, a trailblazer in the fight for women’s health, and she taught Maya and me a lesson that Michelle mentioned the other night. She taught us to never complain about injustice, but do something about it. Do something about it.
Then there was simply the message of change — which she somehow pulled off despite being the incumbent! She pointed to
a precious, fleeting opportunity to move past the bitterness, cynicism and divisive battles of the past, a chance to chart a new way forward. Not as members of any one party or faction, but as Americans.
But my amygdala really stirred when, for the first time, a female nominee for president portrayed herself as a warrior queen:
As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world. I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals, because in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs.
“Lethal” — a word not usually used as a positive at a Democratic convention. But she made it land. Her delivery was strong and crisp. The speech was concise — half the length of Trump’s self-indulgence a few weeks before. I was brought back into the fold.
And yet … as even the MSM conceded, the policy details were light, and the core question the speech raised — is this the real Harris, rather than the 2020 BLM fan? — remained unanswered. Is this the no-nonsense DA, or an appeaser of violence and mayhem? Is this a centrist unifier, or a woke apostle? A Sanders Dem, or an Obama Dem? Which, of course, meant that the next hurdle — a real media interview — was going to be the clarifying one. She had already gone longer than Sarah Palin did hiding from the press.
Aaand … it was a return to earth. First off, why was Walz there, grinning like an emotional support animal? Yes, the first post-convention interview usually includes the veep — but the main candidate has usually run the gamut of one-on-ones during and since the primaries. We needed to see Harris alone. Walz added nothing to the interview, and it looked weak and defensive. Second, it was a pathetic 27 minutes, around 5 of which were entirely softball fluff. Lame.
And she didn’t answer the questions. That’s the first impression. A simple opener about Day One — dumb as it was — was met with a word salad about the middle class and ending price-gouging. Why did she flip-flop on fracking? She couldn’t just say, “I changed my mind in government when I saw a ban was not needed to tackle climate change. I’ve grown. I’ve learned.” Nah: she was still defensive, still word-salady, still vague.
She didn’t allow a chink of daylight between her and the deeply unpopular Biden, and was not pressed, after saying she’d spent hours and hours with him, to cop to his self-evident frailty. She played word games with her 2019 position of decriminalizing illegal border crossing. She had no answer as to why she had said the border was “secure” for three years and then suddenly said it wasn’t. She didn’t brag of the remarkable drop in illegal immigration since Biden made claiming asylum and staying much harder by executive order — presumably because she wants to replace it in office with the Lankford bill, which would be more permissive. So she wants to increase immigration from its current levels.
She had two good moments: when she dismissed the question about Trump and her “race”; and when she spoke of “turning the page” from the “era” of Trumpy toxicity. But the rest was the Kamala we knew before she was transfigured by the MSM and the DNC: no real center, no capacity to talk like a normie, no confidence to admit past errors, no ability to answer the conundrum of her wildly inconsistent political record. The answer she had obviously rehearsed — “My values haven’t changed” — told us nothing, except that we should be skeptical of her newfound centrist tinge.
I am. I think the centrist pitch is almost entirely an electoral ploy, as insincere as it is calculated. When I raise my concerns with my Democratic friends, they universally don’t care. They would vote for a goldfish over Trump. The partisanship is intense right now. And I take the point.
It’s also true that the former president is veering all over the place — as unstable, deranged, belligerent and despicable as ever — but obviously declining in mental acuity and beginning to bore (and now betray) even his own base. And there’s a deep national desire to move past the last decade of bitter division and melodrama. I merely want to note that Harris is not a new person, has not suddenly acquired new skills or genius, has not been tested running a real campaign, and has yet to be subjected to a real interrogation. Her biggest vulnerability — terrible management — remains unaltered, as this Axios piece notes.
The convention raised my hopes and comfort level. The interview sobered me up. “She’ll do” is the most honest rationale for her candidacy. And maybe it will be enough.
(Note to readers: This is an excerpt of The Weekly Dish. If you’re already a subscriber, click here to read the full version. This week’s issue also includes: a fantastic chat with the great and powerful James Carville; an avalanche of reader dissent over my views on Harris; seven notable quotes for the week in news; 19 pieces on Substack we recommend on a variety of subjects; a Mental Health Break of the Bavarian Alps; a patriotic window in Wisconsin; and, of course, the results of the View From Your Window contest — with a new challenge. Subscribe for the full Dish experience!)
A wonderful note from a subscriber:
I am very sorry to read about the passing of your mother and the passing of Chris' stepfather. My sincere condolences to you and your families.
I want to add that I really enjoy the Dish. I don’t agree with everything, but most of it is spot on. When I don’t agree with what you are saying, I still like how your point of view is presented. That the extremes on both sides could do this would be most welcome.
While I’m probably more conservative than you, I consider myself liberal socially. Gay marriage and adoption are fine. A few years ago, a gay friend introduced me to his husband. Really nice guys. I confided to my friend that being old school (I’m now 77), I did find it hard to say “your husband.” He laughed and said that was fine, but the fact I was fully accepting was the most important part.
I’m divorced with three kids and a wonderful 55-yr old girlfriend who makes me feel like I’m 30 again (though she says I act more like I’m 10). I’m also a retired pilot: flew Cobra gunships in Vietnam, switched to airplanes mostly, flew in Africa for nine years then back in the military. I even got a deployment to Iraq when I was 60.
I’m also a paid subscriber to the Dish, and I feel the small amount I pay is well worth it.
New On The Dishcast: James Carville
Carville needs no introduction, but he’s a legendary consultant, a former CNN contributor, and the author of a dozen books. He currently co-hosts the Politics War Room with Al Hunt, a podcast available on Substack, which you should definitely follow for the election season.
Listen to the episode here. There you can find four clips of the highly quotable Cajun — on Harris’ convention speech, Vance’s conversions, Bill Clinton’s “pussy business,” and woke condescension toward minorities. That link also takes you to commentary on our episode with Jeffrey Toobin on lawfare and SCOTUS. There’s also a ton of reader reax on the presidential race. You guys have been brutal.
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Eric Kaufmann on left-liberal excess, Michelle Goldberg on Harris, David Frum on Trump, Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy on animal cruelty, and Sam Harris for our quadrennial chat before Election Day. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com. A listener writes:
I hope you’ve been able to disengage from the “deadliness of doing” this month and have had a few moments of reflection and joy. I just listened to, for the second time, your conversation with Christian Wiman, on a flight back to Minnesota from the West Coast. (The Dishcast is my go-to for air travel.) I think it’s one of your best episodes. The subject matter is so worthwhile: issues of the heart, faith, suffering, and the travails of the human soul.
Please continue these types of discussions whenever you are able. The world clamors for the noise of politics, culture, strife — the passions of the moment. So nice to pull back occasionally.
Dissents Of The Week: Normal Bad vs Existential Bad
A reader responds to my latest column on Harris, posted on August 2:
Regarding your line, “[Race-based equity] is as radical an assault on liberal democracy and a free society as the authoritarianism on the right,” I demur. Policies that run afoul of the Constitution are one thing. Checks and balances handle those. But acts of fraud, conspiracy, and violence to overthrow the Constitution are in an entirely more severe category. That you cannot identify such fundamental differences is shocking. You’re torn?
We have no choice but to vote for Harris, because defending the Constitution matters more than any policy. That is the highest conservative priority.
Conservatives should have spent the last three years building a new political party to compete with and replace the MAGA party. The day after the election, I’ll be looking for such leadership from the likes of Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Larry Hogan.
Another contrasts the two nominees:
Trump has a “truly despicable character,” as you put it; and Harris said a bunch of silly woke stuff during her 2020 primary campaign. It doesn’t look like she would try to be a woke president, but if she does, then Congress would surely stop her. Congress stopped Biden from doing some woke stuff, and the Supreme Court stopped him from doing his autocratic student-loan giveaway. But Congress and the Court can’t do anything about Trump’s despicable character. This looks like an easy call.
I think that you should endorse Harris while also endorsing non-MAGA Republicans for Congress nationwide. Checks and balances. Dishness is ticket-splitting.
That may well be where I end up. But don’t rush me!
Read five more dissents, along with my replies, here — and many more are on the pod page. Follow more Dish discussion on the Notes site here (or the “Notes” tab in the Substack app). As always, keep the dissents coming: dish@andrewsullivan.com.
This is a feature in the paid version of the Dish spotlighting about 20 of our favorite pieces from other Substackers every week. This week’s selection covers subjects such as Zuckerberg and “Russia’s Zuckerberg,” abortion politics, and the history of “tranny”. A few examples:
A judge finally rules in Tickle v. Giggle — and it’s no laughing matter.
You can also browse all the substacks we follow and read on a regular basis here — a combination of our favorite writers and new ones we’re checking out. It’s a blogroll of sorts. If you have any recommendations for “In the ‘Stacks,” especially ones from emerging writers, please let us know: dish@andrewsullivan.com.
The View From Your Window Contest
Where do you think it’s located? Email your guess to contest@andrewsullivan.com. Please put the location — city and/or state first, then country — in the subject line. Proximity counts if no one gets the exact spot. Bonus points for fun facts and stories. The deadline for entries is Wednesday night at midnight (PST). The winner gets the choice of a VFYW book or two annual Dish subscriptions. If you are not a subscriber, please indicate that status in your entry and we will give you a free month subscription if we select your entry for the contest results (example here if you’re new to the contest). Contest archive is here. Happy sleuthing!
The results for this week’s window are coming in a separate email to paid subscribers later today. Here’s the latest cocktail creation from our columnist in Austin:
Well, I went a bit overboard on the cocktail this week. Inspired by the pho cocktail I made last year, I decided to try to make a sushi cocktail. It took a lot of experimentation to get it right, but I think I arrived at a very interesting, balanced drink.
First I made a caramelized fish-sauce syrup. To make the syrup, combine 1/4 cup fish sauce, 1/4 cup water and 1/2 cup of sugar in a saucepan. Bring the mixture to a boil, reduce heat and simmer for five minutes, stirring constantly. After cooling, the mixture should have the consistency of honey. Then take the fish sauce caramel and mix 50:50 with boiling water to make the caramelized fish-sauce syrup.
My cocktail, which I’m calling “The Sashimitini,” combines this syrup with gin, lemon, ginger, sake and wasabi. For a garnish, I used these amazing candied ginger pieces from Fabbri that my wife got me for my birthday.
Here’s how it turned out:
And the recipe:
Add some ice to a cocktail shaker
Add 1/2 teaspoon of finely grated fresh ginger
Add 1/4 teaspoon of whipped wasabi (half if using wasabi paste)
Add 2 oz London dry gin
Add 1 oz of Junmai sake
Add 1 oz fresh lemon juice (about 1 lemon)
Add 1 oz caramelized fish sauce syrup
Shake vigorously
Pour through a fine strainer into a martini glass
Garnish with Fabbri candied ginger
Sip while soaking in a Fukushima hot springs
This was a tricky one to get right, but I think I cracked the code. The syrup gives it both sweetness and saltiness, and works well with the ginger and wasabi. It doesn’t taste like sushi at all, which is a good thing, but it does remind me of a good sushi meal. My wife liked it a lot, though she said it was definitely “odd”. I’ll take odd.
