In a twist that few anticipated for their 2024 political bingo card, The New York Times, often regarded as a bastion of liberal journalism, has taken a critical turn against Kamala Harris, now the Democratic presidential candidate. This change comes as a surprise to many, given the paper’s history of supporting Democratic figures, prompting discussions about the potential implications for Harris’s campaign.
The first sign of this shift was the publication of an op-ed titled “Joy is Not a Strategy.” The piece took direct aim at Harris’s perceived lack of a concrete policy vision, which has been a point of contention since Joe Biden stepped aside from the race. NYT Deputy Opinion Editor Patrick Healy expressed skepticism over former President Bill Clinton’s portrayal of Harris as the “president of joy” during a recent convention. Healy questioned how such rhetoric would address the pressing economic concerns of millions of Americans, particularly in swing states that could decide the election.
The critique didn’t stop there. On the following Monday, The New York Times published another provocative op-ed, “Trump Can Win on Character,” by conservative commentator Rich Lowry. In this piece, Lowry dissected Harris’s political persona, labeling her as “weak” and “a phony who doesn’t truly care about the country or the middle class.” This stark assessment added fuel to the growing narrative that Harris might be struggling to establish her footing as a credible leader in the eyes of the electorate.
The media landscape reacted swiftly to this unexpected turn. Former Biden spokesperson Jen Psaki encountered a dose of reality when CNN’s Don Lemon noted that “no one” in the swing states he visited seemed to know who Kamala Harris was. This revelation underscores the challenge Harris faces in connecting with voters, a task made more difficult by her sparse public appearances and interviews since stepping into her new role.
Observers note that Harris’s unpopularity is a significant hurdle. Her past as the most unpopular Vice President in American history, according to some polls, remains a shadow over her campaign. Despite efforts to cast her in a favorable light, the critiques from The New York Times and others highlight Harris’ inability to articulate clear and persuasive policies that resonate with voters.
In swing states, where trust in a candidate’s economic competence can make or break an election, Harris must work to convince voters of her ability to handle economic challenges better than her opponents. As the campaign progresses, the stakes are high, and the path to success may require more than just “joy” – a reality now echoed even in the pages of The New York Times.