Have I Mentioned We Have Weak Parties?

Fox News reports: Kamala Harris refuses to say who’s leading Democratic Party when pressed by Colbert.

Before wrapping up the interview, Colbert noted how Harris is now out of office and currently isn’t seeking one. He then asked, “Who’s leading the Democratic Party?”

“There are lots of leaders,” Harris responded.

“There’s generally ‘a’ leader of the Democratic Party,” Colbert retorted. “Who comes to mind?”

First, Colbert is simply wrong. The only time there is “a” leader of either party is when a given party has a presidential nominee/sitting president. The closest you ever come outside of those parameters is if the party that does not control the White House controls one or both chambers of Congress, wherein the Speaker and/or Senate Majority Leader is kind of the party leader, but even then, not in some clear way.

There is simply no mechanism for a true leader to be selected. And a given party is at its weakest during the first year after it loses a presidential election, especially since that often means having lost one or both chambers of Congress.

As such, Harris’s unsatisfactory answer was accurate.

“I think there are a lot of – I’m not going to go through names because then I’m going to leave somebody out and then I’m going to hear about it,” Harris told Colbert. “But let me say this. I think it is a mistake for us who want us to figure out how to get out and through this and get out of it to put it on the shoulders of any one person. It’s really on all of our shoulders. It really is.” 

If you had asked Hillary Clinton that question in July of 2017, this would have been the answer. Sure, Minority Leader Pelosi may have had a bit more centrality than Jefferies or Schumer, but not much. She could not have claimed to be the singular leader of the party.

If Donald Trump had been asked that question in July of 2021, he probably would have said himself, and while he would eventually be proved to be correct, the reality is that he was not the singular leader at that point. Remember: there was a moment in which it looked like Ron DeSantis had a chance at actually being the 2024 GOP nominee. I will add that July 2021 Trump was semi-unique insofar as he was an incumbent president who also had a term to spare, giving him more presumptive nominee juice than most losing candidates (such as Harris) have.

Colbert is reflecting something that we often want and think exists: a party leader for the party out of power, but again, this really isn’t a thing, even if it seems like it ought to be one.

Don’t get me wrong, I am unimpressed with the leadership being displayed by both Minority Leader Jefferies and Minority Leader Schumer. But I will hasten to add that Jefferies has very little power as House Minority Leader. I do think that Schumer could be more clever in gumming up the Senate, but the reality remains that he doesn’t have much power, either.

Harris, for that matter, can’t be the leader at this point because, having lost, she would have to re-earn that position in the primaries. And while I think that Obama should be more vocal than he has been, his electoral power is zero because he can’t run again. Party leadership in American politics is so deeply linked to being the candidate/sitting president that it is impossible even for past presidents to serve as the current leader.

Our parties are structurally weak, and they are deeply presidentialized. They are focused mostly on the four-year cycle to select a candidate to compete for the White House. Everything else is secondary. Further, since the next election is really about 435 individual House races (or, really, 435 House primary elections) and 33 individual Senate races/primaries, there are no institutional forces that would generate and empower a specific, singular leader.