If Harris replaces Biden, who should run with Harris?
Considering, from a Common Ground Democracy perspective, the possibility of a cross-party ticket to run against the risk of authoritarianism.
I’m struck today by the number of news stories over the last 24 hours or so that make the case for Vice President Kamela Harris being the most straightforward substitute for President Biden at the top of the Democratic party’s ticket coming out of the party’s convention next month. One piece along these lines is Jim Geraghty’s column for the Washington Post. (See POLITICO’s Playbook for more.)
The arguments are powerful, although were I a Democratic party strategist, I wouldn’t necessarily want to rule out the possibility of an alternative to Harris, like the much-mentioned Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.
But confining myself to the purposes of Common Ground Democracy, I want to consider briefly a different point: assuming that Harris does replace Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee, who should be Harris’s running-mate?
It’s already been suggested that Harris should be “[p]aired with, say, a strong, centrist governor like Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania or Andy Beshear of Kentucky as her running mate.” That suggestion makes good sense from a perspective within the Democratic party.
But I continue to wonder whether the unique threat to democracy itself posed by the potential reelection of Donald Trump calls for a broader conception of what the strongest possible pro-democracy ticket in opposition to Trump would be.
With Harris at the top of the ticket, there would be the option of having her running-mate being a strong anti-Trump Republican, like New Jersey’s former governor Chris Christie. (While New Hampshire’s current governor, Chris Sununu, might have been desirable as the vice-presidential nominee on a unity ticket, Sununu’s eventual endorsement of Trump after he clinched the GOP nomination would seem to rule him out for this role.) A Harris-Christie unity ticket could forcefully make the case that it is essential to defeat Trump for the sake of the Republic and its constitutional democracy, while at the same time making it clear that on matters of public policy (both domestic and foreign) the Harris-Christie administration would govern in a centrist, cross-partisan way that would embrace the needs and interests of all Americans over the next four years. Harris, at the top of the ticket, would clearly be the senior partner in this unity effort, and Christie would have to respect her senior role in their partnership. But if the two of them fully embraced the spirit of the endeavor, it would be an embodiment of the coalitional values espoused by Common Ground Democracy without the benefit of the institutional reforms that would facilitate the creation of cross-party coalitions that encompass the broadest possible swath of the electorate.
Christie of course is not the only possible Republican who could be a running mate for Harris on this kind of unity ticket. I previously mentioned Nevada’s former governor Brian Sandoval as a possible running-mate for Gretchen Whitmer on a unity ticket. Sandoval could just as easily be Harris’s running-mate as Whitmer’s.
Liz Cheney likewise is an obvious possibility if the purpose of the unity ticket were to emphasize the pro-democracy need to defeat Trump. (Because of her extremely conservative policy views, she would be more difficult for Democrats to accept as a running mate on a unity ticket than a more moderate Republican, like Christie or Sandoval.)
Another thought along these lines would be Joe Manchin as a possible running-mate for Harris. He’s not a Republican of course, but he has re-registered as an independent and has clearly distanced himself recently from the Democratic Party. He would be more of a unity ticket candidate than a solidly blue (even if moderate) Democrat, like Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear. If putting a Republican like Christie or Sandoval on the ticket as Harris’s running mate is “a bridge too far” for the Democratic party despite the unique challenge of the times, then choosing Manchin might at least be a useful step in this cross-partisan coalitional direction. (Resentment among Democrats that Manchin was reportedly prepared to break with Biden last Sunday, before being persuaded to hold off, shouldn’t dissuade Democrats from choosing Manchin as a running mate for Harris if they believe that putting him on the ticket would be the most effective way to build a wide enough stop-Trump coalition to prevail in November.)
In any event, as Democrats ponder what they should do about their presidential ticket, they should learn a lesson from what France is going through right now. With the threat looming that Le Pen’s far-right party might be in a position to control France’s legislature after the second round of its current legislative elections, the left and center parties are quickly forming a cross-partisan coalition to put forward candidates with the best chance of defeating far-right opponents. In France, the left and center recognize the need to work together to defeat the greater threat to democracy from the extreme right.
In the United States, let’s hope the left recognizes the urgent need to work effectively with the center to build a large enough alliance to defeat in November the danger to democracy that Trump’s candidacy presents.
I'm a bit shocked at the suggestion of Christie: he has supported Trump before, plus he was well known as corrupt as governor. I have a difficult time imagining a worse choice.
If I'm honest, this mere suggestion makes me question whether or not I share enough of your point of view to continue subscribing.
I like the idea of a cross-party ticket and the pro-democracy message it would send. Ned left out one important possibility for VP: Adam Kinsinger.