US: Vice President Kamala Harris has not yet proven she has the ability

US: When a brilliant orator is around, you can simply sense it. A sensation that the speaker not only owns the moment but also controls the message is palpable and permeates the whole space. History demonstrates that it can win elections, as seen by the staged eloquence of Barack Obama, the folksy charm of Bill Clinton, and the actorly cadence of Ronald Reagan.

And I’m here to inform the Democrats that Vice President Kamala Harris is not yet demonstrating that she has it. This is a major factor in why her lead in the polls is so tenuous and that she may lose on November 5th to a blustery charlatan who speaks incoherently and compellingly. In order for the Democrats to succeed, they must teach her excellent speaking techniques and stop focusing so much on their renewed competitiveness.

It is not intended to imply that Harris would not be a good president. I do not want to undermine her, and I do in fact favor her over the outgoing president, Donald Trump, who is among the few contenders whose personal repulsiveness makes policy seem insignificant. In fact, developing excellent policies has nothing to do with rhetorical proficiency and charm in general—in fact, the two frequently go against one other. If not, they must make a particular effort to acquire it, imitate it, or make up for its lack.

Take the example of President Joe Biden. Despite his decades of experience as a statesman, Biden hasn’t exactly taken the country by storm, and it has nothing to do with his age or his childhood stammer. Despite her unsettling dynasticism, Hillary Clinton was also a skilled politician with extensive policy expertise, but her speeches came out as stilted, cautious, and calculating.

On the other hand, Trump is adept at appealing to the gut with his utterly insulting, defies logic, and grammatical rants. He has a remarkable ability to connect with his base on a primordial level and displays genuine emotion instead of using reasoned argumentation or sophisticated speech to win them over. He’s undoubtedly charming in a bizarro-world way, but he’s also inarticulate, rude, stupid, incurious, and unsophisticated, which irritates anybody who appreciates logic and fact-based reasoning.

The Democratic contenders of late have just not grasped the issues. This is a major factor in the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden’s narrow victory in 2020, since the epidemic and Trump’s actions turned off enough swing voters (while the ludicrous Electoral College manipulations kept the race close). As the front-runner for the presidency, Harris is now faced with the same obstacle: although possessing her strengths, she finds it difficult to defeat Trump in the manner that he deserves.

Imagine how Bill Clinton would have replied to Trump’s claims that Democrats favor “post-birth abortions” and that immigrants are come to devour your pets if he had been the candidate during last week’s debate. It wouldn’t have required stuttering chin strokes or lengthy policy expositions.

I see him saying, “People, I just want to stop everything right there.” You should concentrate on this. It’s just excessive. This is a scene from a comedy about insane politicians, really. Talking like way, you would never invite someone to Thanksgiving dinner, much less let them anywhere near the nuclear button or the economic levers that put food on your table. The American people deserve a president who is not blatantly insane, so I felt compelled to say that.”

It would sound human, not whiny, petty, or even political. Charm amplifies the message and reduces the need for evidence. Riding high on charisma, he should have accumulated a 10-percent advantage by now. Although two-thirds of respondents believe Harris “won” the debate, Harris fell short of doing that. And this is a universal characteristic of the liberal side these days, not only of the Democrats. Although their candidates often have superior ideas, they lack the charm necessary to win people over and emotionally control the discussion.
This problem is not at all new. Orators have had great influence throughout history, often surpassing their efficacy as legislators.

Cicero was regarded as one of history’s best orators in ancient Rome. His statements have the power to influence public opinion and even alter the trajectory of political affairs. However, his abilities did not always result in effective leadership or long-lasting impact. Numerous leaders, such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zimbabwe, and Fidel Castro of Cuba, were just criminals elevated to positions of power. Of course, Adolf Hitler instituted the gold standard. His policies were disastrous for the globe, but he was a charismatic speaker who could captivate an audience and persuade them to share his destructive vision.

Conversely, the remarks made by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during World War II motivated a country to endure in the face of overwhelming adversity. Similar to this, more recent leaders like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair have shown how effective speech can captivate an audience and rally supporters—even when it is filled with falsehoods. Blair’s “New Labour” movement, driven by his sophisticated vocabulary, revolutionized British politics, while, regrettably, Netanyahu’s aggressive remarks have maintained him in power in Israel for a very long time.

Harris may be a fantastic president. She has a very traditional mix of expertise, policy views, and future-oriented thinking for America that contrasts sharply with Trump’s carelessness. She is aware of fundamental facts that her opponent is unaware of, such as the fact that American consumers bear the true cost of import tariffs, and she would not attempt to topple the international order that America established after World War II.

However, her speech often seems very staged and lacks the organic flow and captivating energy that captivates listeners. This is problematic since impression often prevails over fact in politics. Having sound policies is insufficient; you also need to advocate for them with zeal and sincerity.

She should learn how to fake it if she can’t conjure up natural oratory magic. She needs an exceptional wordsmith, someone who can produce compelling, memorable sentences. She has to find well-placed zingers that cut through the cacophony and ring true, and she needs to quit her childish laughter at difficult times (“talk about extremist!” was the best she could do with the dogs’ stupidity). She cannot afford to let the show overwhelm the substance when it comes to opposing Trump.

The Electoral College itself is being challenged by the Democrats in addition to Trump. Error is not an option, and they most definitely cannot overlook the most fundamental of all: personality, dumb!