I WAS thrilled to see that American presidential candidate Kamala Harris had picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate.
It is said that selecting a running mate is the first major decision that shows what a presidential candidate is made of, and from all the data currently available, it seems Harris chose wisely.
The whole process through which the selection happened was intriguing to follow, and has lessons for politicians all over, including here in Malaysia.
Walz beat out a deep and accomplished bench of competitors in the Democratic Party, and the factors that led to his selection may afford us some key insights into what pushes a candidate in politics across the finishing line in this day and age.
It was literally only weeks ago that no one had really heard of this guy before.
The second tier of Democratic leadership started rising to prominence most notably after US President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate against Republican candidate Donald Trump.
As polling numbers after that debate sent Democrats into a panicked frenzy, speculation started to mount over who could replace Biden on the Democratic ticket.
There were easily 10-15 names that people started throwing around, and I’m fairly sure Walz was on almost none of those lists.
To her credit, Harris moved fast after Biden stepped down, managing to neutralise or bring on board any other potential contender for the top of the ticket.
The focus then shifted to who would be Harris’ running mate.
From those 10-15 most popular names, most people who were not a white male dropped off the list. Even then, Walz was nowhere in sight.
And then he started doing interviews on cable news. Making his first major appearances – again, just barely weeks ago.
But there was something about him.
Make no mistake, all the other people who were top contenders for the post had a certain amount of charisma, good resumes, and a good record of relevant electoral successes.
I would argue that two things set Walz apart from this field.
First was the personality and character he projected.
Some of the adjectives used included: folksy, straight talking, relatable, genuine, authentic.
Walz communicated in a way that made you feel like he was talking to you from his heart – a heart he wore on his sleeve.
He did not come across as a guy who was reading from a teleprompter, or who had carefully test run all the possible phrases he could come across via polling and focus groups. He just said what he felt.
Few other politicians are able to speak so eloquently off the cuff, while still coming across as genuine. Locally, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Amanah president Datuk Seri Mohamad Sabu come to mind.
The second thing that set Walz apart was one single word: weird.
This was the term Walz used to describe Trump and his running mate JD Vance – “just plain weird.”
This line of attack caught on among the Democrats like wildfire, because it really seemed to stick – the same way “flip-flop” stuck to John Kerry, back in the day.
I was particularly impressed by some of Walz’s observations. He once described how he comes home from a long day at work, plays frisbee with his dog, gives him belly rubs and calls him a good boy. And then he asked: can you imagine Trump doing that?
Even more pointedly, he asked a single simple question: have you ever seen Donald Trump laugh?
In that one simple question, Walz succeeded in alienating Trump and his allies, defining them as strange outliers that cannot truly advance the interests of everyday Americans, because he has no ability to relate to or understand everyday Americans.
The very best part of this attack is: what is Trump going to say in response? “I’m not weird”?
I can’t imagine a line that would make someone sound, well, very weird indeed.
Towards the end, the competition to be picked as running mate seemed mostly to be between Walz and Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro.
Arizona Senator Mark Kelly was probably in the final three. Kelly was boring. There’s really nothing more to say about that.
Shapiro was an extremely popular governor in a state that very many pundits and pollsters believe could be a singular tipping point that could determine the entire election.
I believe one news report showed bookies putting his odds of being selected at 73%, probably for this one reason.
This was notwithstanding the fact that Shapiro had been perceived to be extremely pro-Israel. One great thing about this election cycle is that it has brought to the fore the extreme unpopularity of supporting the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
Shapiro was also an extremely accomplished orator. One satire show played an audio clip of Shapiro speaking, commenting that without video footage, it was hard to tell him apart from former president Barack Obama.
This made listening to him a generally pleasant and invigorating experience.
If you compare Shapiro and Walz side by side however, I think the difference comes down to genuineness and authenticity.
The last thing I would argue is that Shapiro is not genuine or authentic. But if you listen to both of them long enough and closely enough, you may find Shapiro’s persona to feel a little more rehearsed and “polished”, compared to the way in which Walz seems to speak from the heart.
There were reports that one of Walz’s “big confessions” during his vetting process was: “I’ve never used a teleprompter before in my life.”
When a candidate comes across as speaking like that from the heart, he connects with voters in a different way. The term “next level” comes to mind.
If I had to hazard a guess, I think this was what pushed Walz across the finish line.
I imagine the political calculus would have gone down to the level of voting counties, and looking at Walz’s abilities to help flip purple swing counties in swing states, based on his own experience winning his Congressional seat in a district that had been almost entirely Republican since 1892 – a staggering statistic.
The calculation may also have been that the number of Pennsylvania voters who would vote for Harris only if Shapiro was on the ticket may have been marginal, especially if Shapiro closed ranks and vigorously supported whoever was picked.
Going by the announcement and debut of Walz as vice presidential candidate in Philadelphia, that seems to be exactly what happened.
At the announcement, Shapiro gave his usual rousing speech, and gave a glowing endorsem*nt of Walz, holding nothing back.
Walz, gracious in victory, did the exact same thing. The second thing Walz did as soon as he started speaking was to return the favour, and heap unbridled praise upon Shapiro – who he had essentially just beaten for the role.
The very first thing that Walz did in his speech however, was thank Harris “for bringing back the joy.”
This was a phrase that was as moving and profound as it was simple.
In that simple line, Walz once again demonstrated what I considered unparalleled political instinct and acumen, and an uncanny ability to simplify and whittle down the very core of an effective, powerful message.
That one phrase alluded to the severe toxicity, negativity, and disillusionment that has come to characterise politics not just in America, but nearly everywhere in the world.
It acknowledged how incredibly difficult and rare it was nowadays to find any path in politics that wasn’t filled with disappointment and despair.
It offered hope.
It offered a sense of how fighting for what was right needn’t be either futile or filled only with pain. It communicated the sense of purpose, and of course, the joy of working together against people who would divide, for a better future for everyone.
They called him the Happy Warrior – I think it’s a name that’s going to stick.
For Malaysian leaders watching this campaign, there’s a lot to learn about the politics of positivity, the importance of being genuine and authentic, and the ability to truly connect with not just your supporters, but people who tend to vote for the other party. – August 8, 2024
Nathaniel Tan is strategic communications consultant who reads Scoop
