By not identifying those deemed responsible for the economic difficulties faced by many working Americans, Democrats are perceived to lack a convincing narrative on what changes they intend to implement and who should be held accountable.
The Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, is observed to be struggling to make a decisive impact with uncertain voters, despite going up against an opponent seen as flawed. This issue may be rooted in a fundamental human desire to pinpoint the source of problems—a need for blame when things go wrong.
Harris has been effective on the issue of abortion rights, where she has clearly attributed the loss of women’s healthcare access to the Supreme Court and former President Donald Trump. However, despite her lack of a clear strategy to restore abortion rights due to the current composition of both the Supreme Court and Congress, her narrative resonates with the public in making sense of the recent past.
Conversely, on the economic front, Harris finds herself in a less favorable position. She has presented multiple policies, which are both progressive and practical, yet she has not provided a narrative detailing the origins of the economic issues these policies aim to address. When attempting to blame Trump for economic challenges, her narrative appears disconnected from the public’s perception, as the 2016 election or the COVID-19 pandemic did not seem to be the starting point of these problems for many.
An example of this issue is seen in the recent rural policy rollout by Harris and Walz, which included supportive policies for local pharmacies and safeguards against land consolidation but lacked an identified antagonist. Without blaming entities like Big Agriculture or large pharmacy chains, these policies fail to connect with rural voters’ anger. Naming these entities could help voters understand that Harris comprehends their difficulties and is thus better equipped to address them.
The campaign’s focus on future plans without addressing the root causes of present economic struggles is viewed as a misstep. Attempts to counter Trump should not ignore his controversial past but should instead provide an honest narrative. This absence of clarity regarding economic villains is why many voters still prefer Trump on economic issues.
Harris still has time to introduce other adversaries besides Trump into her closing arguments. She could mention issues like NAFTA, trade rule-breaking by China, corporate monopolies in agriculture and the oil industry, and the influence of big donors and dark money on democracy. Recognizing these factors can provide a clearer understanding of stagnant wages and high housing costs, thus offering a more optimistic outlook based on understanding rather than ignoring causes.
Without identifying the causes of economic distress, it is speculated that Harris may struggle to gain voters’ trust on this critical issue. Despite progress made under the previous administration in jobs and small businesses, acknowledging longstanding issues such as wage stagnation and the impact of monopolies remains essential. The narrative must address these longstanding issues to resonate more deeply with voters, as failing to do so could affect the election outcome.
