Not since South Park Elementary’s election campaign between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich has an election bedevilled me as much as this one. On the one hand, the choice is disarmingly simple. One of the candidates is obviously mentally unhinged, delusional, malignant and contemptuous of the rule of law. One of the candidates hasn’t just broken norms. He has broken the norm, the indispensable norm for the continuation of the republic: accepting the results of an election. This is the third time Donald Trump has told us in advance he won’t do that if he doesn’t win. And the second time, he incited a mob to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. One of the candidates is also pledging a wave of protectionism not seen since the 1930s, the mass deportation of more than 11 million people, the judicial persecution of his political enemies and an enthusiasm for the latest expansion of the Russian empire. The other is merely old-school Democratic cringe.
So why on earth is it so nail-bitingly close? And why did I find myself writing an endorsement of Kamala Harris last week only to be immediately beset by a case of sudden-onset nausea? Yes, it’s the platitudes, the elite-speak, the fawning crowds and the irritating eruptions of fake ‘joy’ that put me off. But is there a clear reason to vote for Harris – or does this feel like Hillary Clinton in 2016 all over again? She was never supposed to be the candidate, of course, and if Joe Biden’s vanity hadn’t got in the way, she would have been winnowed out in a primary long ago. Her weaknesses are hard to hide. She has never campaigned by herself against a serious Republican opponent. Despite a good acceptance speech and decent debate, she hasn’t obviously seized a lead.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in