A couple of weeks ago, Kamala Harris got the full New York Times treatment — a lengthy article speculating whether she would run for governor of California next year or prepare for another shot at the White House in 2028.
As the Times is wont to do, the piece was full of quotes and suppositions from anonymous sources.
“Interviews with more than three dozen of Ms. Harris’s advisers, former aides, allies and friends reveal a politician — known, as much as anything, for her caution — standing at perhaps her most fateful crossroads yet,” the Times said in a piece with four bylines.
“After 22 years as an elected official, she must decide whether, or how, to continue her political career in an environment that was remade by her defeat.
“Some Harris aides believe she would automatically be the front-runner in a crowded primary field, thanks to her name recognition and wide network of donors and supporters.
“But many more Democrats argue against another Harris-for-President bid: The 2028 election will be a contest for the party’s future in which she would be perceived as a figure of the past, the reasoning goes. Others say Democrats will not nominate another woman, fearing the country is too sexist for her to win.”
The article more or less pointed to a gubernatorial run rather than waiting for 2028.
“Ms. Harris has good reason for leaning toward a run for governor, according to people who have spoken with her,” the Times said. “She has watched with horror as institutions Democrats care about — universities, law firms and more — have caved under pressure. And she believes that as governor of the nation’s most populous blue state, she would have a powerful platform from which to push back against Mr. Trump and his policies, and to defend Democratic priorities and values.”
There are two things wrong with the article.
The first is that it cast Harris’ situation almost entirely in terms of advancing her political career, an example of political journalism’s tendency to cover politics as something like reporting on sports events — who’s winning, who’s losing, who’s up and who’s down — rather than a prelude to governance.
That approach, while appealing to political junkies, completely ignores the issues that a politician might face if he or she is fortunate enough to be elected. In this case, the Times implied that the 2026 election for a governor who would lead the world’s fourth-largest economy is just about opposition to Donald Trump and nothing else.
The article contained not one sentence about the California issues Harris would inherit from Gavin Newsom were she to become governor — such thorny matters as a perpetual housing shortage, homelessness, poverty, an uncertain water supply, educational deficiencies and chronic state budget deficits.
Having ignored those issues, all of which predate Trump, the Times article’s second deficiency is that it contained nothing about Harris’ abilities, or lack thereof, to confront them. And there is good reason to doubt whether she would be up to the job.
During her climb up the political ladder, Harris’ record was mixed — at best. As the state’s attorney general she was best known for tightly orchestrated media events rather than substantive action. She even ducked the Capitol’s debates about changing the criminal justice system.
As a senator she authored no noteworthy legislation, not even on California-centered matters, while the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein steadfastly carried the state’s political water. Harris’ campaign for president in 2020 was a disaster, and after being chosen as Joe Biden’s running mate she did little of note as vice president.
Governing an extremely complex state such as California is a daunting task, as any past governor could attest, not a consolation prize for losing a presidential contest.
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
