Vice President Kamala Harris’s choice of Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) as running mate solidifies the presidential race’s jump to either end of the political spectrum. When former President Donald Trump chose Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) for his running mate, surprise rang out at the choice of a non-centrist, and the same echoes bounced off the pick of Walz. It remains to be seen whether a move further left or right will strengthen the polling of either presidential hopeful, but it is clear what groups their nominations target.
Though he aligns well as a Trumpist, Vance falls further right than the candidate in policy and persona. He is true to Trump on immigration and foreign policy — these are standards that should not have been broken no matter whom Trump chose, while convictions on everything else were reasonably fair game. On the surface, Vance’s position as family-focused and outwardly Catholic makes him a figure consistent in his conservatism, one who gives an impression of the sort of virtue Trump’s personal life seems to lack. The senator’s stances on taxes and abortion express this preference most clearly: He voted in favor of the child tax credit, exhibiting his commitment to advocating family. On abortion, Vance has made it known he is greatly opposed to it, much more so than adherence to the Trump-influenced GOP platform allows.
As a vice presidential pick of a stronger intellectual reputation than usual, Vance’s interests place extra weight on his rightward lean. It is his friendships with the “New Right” that define his ideas, with such figures as post-liberal scholars and neo-monarchist bloggers. His “techno-authoritarianism” scares liberals — Vance takes influence from Peter Thiel and has spoken encouragingly of reconstructing the administrative state to Trump’s favor. Although these takes are certainly favorable to a subset of Trump’s voting base, they remain niche enough to leave their benefit ambiguous, at best, for the time.
Walz’s progressive record takes less effort to tease out. His response to the 2020 Minneapolis riots was an “abject failure” that endangered the state. He has attempted to advance several aggressive climate policies. He is extreme on immigration programs. And, if Walz has his way, Minnesota’s already high income tax rate will be on the rise. Most radical, Walz has worked to make abortion unlimited in Minnesota, as well as making the state a “trans refuge” that harms children and denies parental rights. In short, Walz is in lockstep with Harris on the far Left.
It is clear that what Vance and Walz best offer their respective presidential candidates are votes drawn by their more extreme elements. While the bloc of voters attracted to Vance’s further-right qualities are important to secure, those of Walz’s left are not the ones the Democrats need to corral.
That’s not to say that far-left voters are disengaged. In fact, the more ideological a group is, whether far left or far right, the more politically engaged it is. But Harris’s ideas alone do enough to inspire progressives, and so Walz is a wasted outreach to that group. The votes are already there. Liberals who survey the conservative media landscape will encounter a heavy focus on Walz’s radicalism as a weak point, and they will be motivated to stick it to Trump on the basis of this radicalism, no differently than they might have done otherwise.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Contrast this with similarly engaged right-wingers: If Trump’s centrist GOP platform is a disappointment in some ways, Vance’s right-radicalism is a relief. By virtue of their principle-based value system, conservatives are more likely to be morally bound, or just uncannily committed, to specific points on a candidate’s agenda. The liberal system, by design, rejects this mode and so does not often find itself wrapped in the same fabric that might bind a conservative to one issue. Abortion is the clearest example. Vance has the opportunity to be rather influential on the Trump ticket: Based on how he explains his position on abortion, those disenchanted with Trump’s pro-life policies can be turned from a decision not to vote to a decisive supporting vote.
Whereas Vance can tap into this nuance, not so for Walz: Strong liberal engagement is such that autonomy directs thought, and so not only is that distinctly conservative mechanism absent, but Harris is, as the Democratic Party is keen on emphasizing, enough on her own.