The Biden administration has been one of the most efficient and successful in modern history. With narrow majorities in Congress and then a hostile House in the past two years, the White House nevertheless passed a huge raft of legislation, had no scandals (Republicans failed to come up with anything), enjoyed virtually no turnover and did very little leaking. Though Vice President Kamala Harris can be expected to build on President Joe Biden’s successes if she wins the election, each White House is different, because each president is different. And Harris can make some significant but important changes.
To start with personnel: Harris should make every effort to keep Biden’s Cabinet superstars — Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg — as she assembles her own team. At the Justice Department, however, she will need someone far more aggressive and politically astute than the current attorney general — perhaps former acting attorney general Sally Q. Yates or North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a former state attorney general who, by then, will be out of office. Harris also should make every effort to find one or more Republicans who can reinforce the bipartisan coalition she is assembling. Adam Kinzinger for Veterans Affairs would make sense, with Liz Cheney perhaps at the FBI or in a top ambassadorship.
Should Democrats secure even slim majorities in the House and Senate, Harris — in contrast to Biden — should explicitly support filibuster reform or abolition, at least on essential matters of democracy and national security (e.g., voting/democracy reforms, border security). That can set the tone for a more aggressive posture in confronting MAGA Republicans.
On legislation, Harris need not employ the same strategy that Biden confronted in battling his way out of a pandemic and recession. Then, speed was essential: Biden’s team feared it would only get a few swings at passing big bills. That compelled him to create large packages (e.g., the American Rescue Plan, the Inflation Reduction Act), which many Americans, frankly, did not understand. Certainly, each achieved a lot in a fell swoop (e.g., the IRA included insulin price caps, additional caps on prescription drug costs for seniors and a historic investment in green energy). However, when the public does not know what’s included in a mammoth bill, the president is unlikely to benefit and the opposition can mischaracterize what is in it.
Instead, Harris would be wise to go topic by topic, starting with a tax bill (including the child tax credit and child care subsidy), a border bill and then a democracy bill. (Housing and other domestic spending programs can be handled in the budget bill.)
The democracy/civil rights initiative should not contain the full wish list Democrats previously sought, encompassing everything from campaign finance reform to making Election Day a holiday. Rather, Harris would be wise to focus on the top items: codify Roe v. Wade, grant D.C. statehood, end political gerrymandering, reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and reform the Supreme Court (e.g., a mandatory ethics code and 18-year term limits). Those items, if achieved, would remake the political landscape and provide the biggest boost for democracy since the Voting Right Act of 1965.
Trimming the bills and simplifying their content will help explain what’s passing and force Republicans to explain objections to specific items. Harris can avoid Biden’s predicament of constituents being unaware of so much he accomplished. And she can also change the White House relationship with the media.
As far as public communication goes, the Biden White House initially seemed to think that less is more. After a term with former president Donald Trump, Biden’s aides figured the public probably did not want the president constantly in their faces. Later, they appeared anxious to shield Biden from scrutiny and avoid gaffes. He thereby lost the connection with voters, allowing Republicans to characterize him as infirm.
Harris is in an entirely different position. An energetic and gifted communicator, she should make full use of prime-time addresses, conduct periodic interviews with major outlets and get out on the road whenever possible. The quality and quantity of her interaction with White House reporters could also be improved — reporters would be less likely to shout questions like an angry mob if they were rewarded with more frequent news conferences. She should brush aside process and polling questions, sticking to substance.
Harris need not engage with fake right-wing operations masquerading as news outlets. What’s the point of her dignifying the presence of propagandists such as Fox News’s Peter Doocy? She can let communicators from the administration and Congress — e.g., Buttigieg as well as Reps. Jamie Raskin (Md.), Dan Goldman (N.Y.) and Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) — take the administration’s case to cable TV outlets, even Fox News. (It would not hurt to have a rotating group of House and Senate members able to serve as surrogates.)
Meanwhile, her press secretary can take a stronger and more aggressive stance in the briefing room (e.g., call out lies, don’t answer the same question twice). In addition, Harris can bring back and update one useful communication tactic. President Ronald Reagan used a short Saturday radio address to make news and keep in touch with the public. Harris should do one for streaming and social media.
If elected, in sum, Harris will bring new strengths to the Oval Office, although much depends on the margin of victory and which party holds the House and Senate majorities. But if her campaign is any indication, a sharper and more nimble White House — aided by the Biden all-stars, a clear and discrete agenda, a willingness to dispense with the filibuster, and a more confident and aggressive media strategy — is possible. She’ll need that. Even if she wins, the MAGA movement, the right-wing propaganda machine and a mainstream media too obsessed with process and gamifying politics will remain.
