In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated Michael Dukakis as their presidential candidate. Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts at the time and considered a lightweight compared to the Republican nominee, George H.W. Bush.
To improve his chances against Bush, Dukakis picked Senator Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate. A Texan like Bush, Bentsen was 12 years older than Dukakis and had an almost statesman-like appearance that contrasted starkly against the flaky, East-Coast liberal persona that was Michael Dukakis. Bentsen anchored the ticket with the America that was not too enamored with the liberal elite that already then dominated the Boston-Washington corridor.
Bentsen did a good job elevating the Democratic ticket, and he did especially well in a debate against Dan Quayle, the Republican vice-presidential candidate. When Quayle tried to compare himself to John F. Kennedy, Bentsen countered that he had known Kennedy, served with Kennedy, and told Quayle, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
In short, Bentsen creamed his opponent and made Quayle look exactly as weak, unassuming, and pale as he actually was.
It was a respectable performance by an experienced politician, but it was not enough to save the Democratic ticket. George H.W. Bush, who was coming off eight years as vice president under the extremely popular Ronald Reagan, essentially campaigned as a stand-in for a third term with Reagan. Unsurprisingly, Bush won by a convincing margin and secured an electoral college victory of 426-111.
Fast forward to 2024 and the Democrats’ presidential nominee Kamala Harris. She shares many of the weakening character traits that Dukakis had, including an affinity for treating criminals like victims. Like Dukakis, Harris lacks leadership skills; when she puts her finger up in the air, it is not to show the way but to feel which way the wind is blowing.
Although Harris is running a tighter race against Trump than Dukakis did against Bush Sr., she still has not been able to seize the frontrunner position. Trump leads in terms of electoral college votes, and although Harris has inched closer in the popular vote, veteran Democrat campaign strategist David Axelrod—the mastermind behind Obama’s 2008 campaign—admits that Trump is on his way to winning this election.
When Kamala Harris is off-script, she is giggly and nervous. She is an even worse presidential candidate than Dukakis was 36 years ago. Where he was a moderately successful governor, she has been a vice president who failed the only mission that President Biden gave her: to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants across the southern border. Her performance on that issue was so abysmal that the House of Representatives recently passed a resolution:
The House of Representatives strongly condemns the Biden administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris’s, failure to secure the United States border
The criticism against Harris has been strong enough that six Democrat members of the House voted for the resolution—an unprecedented break with party ranks that signaled how weak Harris really is as a presidential candidate.
In this situation, an increasingly desperate Democratic Party’s presidential campaign had one last major card to play: their choice of running mate for Kamala Harris.
Their eyes fell on Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. In his second term as the chief executive of the ‘North Star State,’ Walz has a respectable resume. Before being elected governor in 2018, he served 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served 24 years in the Army National Guard. At 60 years of age, he is 20 years older than Senator J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president.
Which brings us right back to the reason why the Harris campaign chose Walz. They are hoping for a Lloyd Bentsen momentum, but with a different outcome than in 1988. The Democrats are hoping to compensate for the featherweight candidate they have in Kamala Harris, and their choice was logical from that viewpoint. There is a case to be made, namely, that Walz can add clout and confidence to the Democratic ticket. He can point to his gubernatorial experience, which is generally a strong point if you have presidential aspirations. Four of the 13 presidents since World War II have been governors: Carter (Georgia), Reagan (California), Clinton (Arkansas), and Bush Jr (Texas).
Vance, by contrast, is a sitting U.S. Senator who won his seat in 2022.
With his 24-year military career, Walz can also hope to overshadow Vance’s four years in the Marines.
Looking strictly at these criteria, Tim Walz brings some real clout to the Democratic ticket. However, it is unlikely that he will help take the wind out of the sails of the Trump campaign. To begin with, although J.D. Vance is not a career politician, he has not been idling since he left the Marine Corps in 2007. After law school, Vance practiced law and then shifted to venture capitalism—which in practice means that he invested in upstart businesses to give aspiring entrepreneurs a chance to succeed.
At the same time, Vance does not boast a wealthy background. Everything he has, he earned through hard work. He grew up very poor, on that thin line between success and failure where every decision you make, whether large or small, can for the rest of your life land you on either side of that line. Having written a book about his childhood, Vance has positioned himself as a voice for the ‘little guy,’ the forgotten America that the liberal coastal elite surrounding Kamala Harris feel nothing but contempt for.
With that said, the Democrats realize that they need the ‘hillbillies’ in flyover country to vote for them. Again, the Democrats hope to counter Vance’s clout by running Walz, the son of a small town in Nebraska, against Vance. Although Vance is a formidable candidate and Walz would be well advised not to underestimate him, his biggest opponent is actually his own running mate.
Just like Lloyd Bentsen’s biggest problem was Michael Dukakis, Walz’s is the radical leftist above him on the ticket.
The radical leftist policies of Dukakis haunted him throughout the entire presidential campaign. Among his biggest mistakes was a criminal justice reform, or ‘prison furlough’ program. In line with the long-standing leftist doctrine that criminals are victims, Dukakis thought it was a good idea to let hardened, unrepentant felons out of jail.
One of them, Willie Horton, a violent criminal, traveled from Massachusetts to Maryland. He committed a brutal home invasion and horrifically assaulted the couple who resided there.
Horton was arrested a short time later. He was convicted and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison in Maryland. A judge denied his extradition to Massachusetts, citing the risk that Horton might be released again under another ‘prison furlough’ program. The fact that Michael Dukakis had approved the program that released Horton in the first place effectively sealed the fate of his presidential campaign. Spearheaded by campaign strategist Lee Atwater, the Bush campaign mercilessly used the Willie Horton case against Dukakis, effectively making him a co-defendant of the crimes that Horton committed in Maryland.
In Dukakis’ defense, he increased the Democrat vote from the 1984 election when Walter Mondale gathered 37.6 million votes against Reagan’s 54.5 million. While Bush Sr. handily secured his 1988 victory with 49.8 million votes, Dukakis added 4.2 million voters to his ranks compared to Mondale.
It ended up doing him no good, as he lost, but it makes it plausible that the addition of Lloyd Bentsen to the ticket helped reverse the voter loss that the Democrats had suffered since Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980. The problem for Dukakis-Bentsen was Dukakis, not Bentsen.
Tim Walz has a similar problem, although his general ideological position as governor of Minnesota places him further to the left than his predecessor from 36 years ago. But he is not as far to the left as Kamala Harris is—and she has the same Achilles heel in the southern border as Dukakis had in Willie Horton.
And that is not all. Harris has already laid out a radical, heavily left-leaning vision for what role government should play in people’s lives. During a speech in Wisconsin soon after the Republican convention, she promised that on her watch, the federal government would provide both child care and family leave—and make America’s taxpayers foot the bill. She also wants to expand the government’s role in health care; in the past, she has advocated a complete government takeover of the entire health care system—a single-payer model that she has since walked back from.
The retraction of support for a single-payer model is purely tactical; every Democrat presidential candidate since—actually—Michael Dukakis has endorsed the single-payer principle. Since President Obama got his reform through, introducing costly government subsidies for subpar health plans, it has become less popular on the political left to propose even more government involvement. However, that does not mean a President Kamala Harris would not sign a single-payer bill if Congress passed one. On the contrary, she would gladly do it, and win an ideological victory without having had to take the political risks associated with it.
This strategic approach to policy issues is in itself not controversial—politicians do it all the time. What matters here is the ideological message in her position on health care, child care, and family leave. By supporting an expansion of tax-paid programs in these areas, Harris is trying to bring the American welfare state closer to the Swedish original after which it was modeled. This means yet another sharp turn to the left, even for the Democratic Party.
If the Trump campaign exposes Harris as the radical she is, it will not matter who she picked for vice president. Tim Walz will go down in history as Lloyd Bentsen II. But he may himself derail the campaign if he underestimates his Republican opponent: while Lloyd Bentsen was up against the hapless Dan Quayle, J.D. Vance is no Dan Quayle. Vance is very intelligent, already politically savvy, and comes with a voter appeal that Quayle could never have summoned, even if his life depended on it.
With Tim Walz, Kamala Harris Repeats History
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated Michael Dukakis as their presidential candidate. Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts at the time and considered a lightweight compared to the Republican nominee, George H.W. Bush.
To improve his chances against Bush, Dukakis picked Senator Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate. A Texan like Bush, Bentsen was 12 years older than Dukakis and had an almost statesman-like appearance that contrasted starkly against the flaky, East-Coast liberal persona that was Michael Dukakis. Bentsen anchored the ticket with the America that was not too enamored with the liberal elite that already then dominated the Boston-Washington corridor.
Bentsen did a good job elevating the Democratic ticket, and he did especially well in a debate against Dan Quayle, the Republican vice-presidential candidate. When Quayle tried to compare himself to John F. Kennedy, Bentsen countered that he had known Kennedy, served with Kennedy, and told Quayle, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
In short, Bentsen creamed his opponent and made Quayle look exactly as weak, unassuming, and pale as he actually was.
It was a respectable performance by an experienced politician, but it was not enough to save the Democratic ticket. George H.W. Bush, who was coming off eight years as vice president under the extremely popular Ronald Reagan, essentially campaigned as a stand-in for a third term with Reagan. Unsurprisingly, Bush won by a convincing margin and secured an electoral college victory of 426-111.
Fast forward to 2024 and the Democrats’ presidential nominee Kamala Harris. She shares many of the weakening character traits that Dukakis had, including an affinity for treating criminals like victims. Like Dukakis, Harris lacks leadership skills; when she puts her finger up in the air, it is not to show the way but to feel which way the wind is blowing.
Although Harris is running a tighter race against Trump than Dukakis did against Bush Sr., she still has not been able to seize the frontrunner position. Trump leads in terms of electoral college votes, and although Harris has inched closer in the popular vote, veteran Democrat campaign strategist David Axelrod—the mastermind behind Obama’s 2008 campaign—admits that Trump is on his way to winning this election.
When Kamala Harris is off-script, she is giggly and nervous. She is an even worse presidential candidate than Dukakis was 36 years ago. Where he was a moderately successful governor, she has been a vice president who failed the only mission that President Biden gave her: to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants across the southern border. Her performance on that issue was so abysmal that the House of Representatives recently passed a resolution:
The criticism against Harris has been strong enough that six Democrat members of the House voted for the resolution—an unprecedented break with party ranks that signaled how weak Harris really is as a presidential candidate.
In this situation, an increasingly desperate Democratic Party’s presidential campaign had one last major card to play: their choice of running mate for Kamala Harris.
Their eyes fell on Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. In his second term as the chief executive of the ‘North Star State,’ Walz has a respectable resume. Before being elected governor in 2018, he served 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served 24 years in the Army National Guard. At 60 years of age, he is 20 years older than Senator J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president.
Which brings us right back to the reason why the Harris campaign chose Walz. They are hoping for a Lloyd Bentsen momentum, but with a different outcome than in 1988. The Democrats are hoping to compensate for the featherweight candidate they have in Kamala Harris, and their choice was logical from that viewpoint. There is a case to be made, namely, that Walz can add clout and confidence to the Democratic ticket. He can point to his gubernatorial experience, which is generally a strong point if you have presidential aspirations. Four of the 13 presidents since World War II have been governors: Carter (Georgia), Reagan (California), Clinton (Arkansas), and Bush Jr (Texas).
Vance, by contrast, is a sitting U.S. Senator who won his seat in 2022.
With his 24-year military career, Walz can also hope to overshadow Vance’s four years in the Marines.
Looking strictly at these criteria, Tim Walz brings some real clout to the Democratic ticket. However, it is unlikely that he will help take the wind out of the sails of the Trump campaign. To begin with, although J.D. Vance is not a career politician, he has not been idling since he left the Marine Corps in 2007. After law school, Vance practiced law and then shifted to venture capitalism—which in practice means that he invested in upstart businesses to give aspiring entrepreneurs a chance to succeed.
At the same time, Vance does not boast a wealthy background. Everything he has, he earned through hard work. He grew up very poor, on that thin line between success and failure where every decision you make, whether large or small, can for the rest of your life land you on either side of that line. Having written a book about his childhood, Vance has positioned himself as a voice for the ‘little guy,’ the forgotten America that the liberal coastal elite surrounding Kamala Harris feel nothing but contempt for.
With that said, the Democrats realize that they need the ‘hillbillies’ in flyover country to vote for them. Again, the Democrats hope to counter Vance’s clout by running Walz, the son of a small town in Nebraska, against Vance. Although Vance is a formidable candidate and Walz would be well advised not to underestimate him, his biggest opponent is actually his own running mate.
Just like Lloyd Bentsen’s biggest problem was Michael Dukakis, Walz’s is the radical leftist above him on the ticket.
The radical leftist policies of Dukakis haunted him throughout the entire presidential campaign. Among his biggest mistakes was a criminal justice reform, or ‘prison furlough’ program. In line with the long-standing leftist doctrine that criminals are victims, Dukakis thought it was a good idea to let hardened, unrepentant felons out of jail.
One of them, Willie Horton, a violent criminal, traveled from Massachusetts to Maryland. He committed a brutal home invasion and horrifically assaulted the couple who resided there.
Horton was arrested a short time later. He was convicted and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison in Maryland. A judge denied his extradition to Massachusetts, citing the risk that Horton might be released again under another ‘prison furlough’ program. The fact that Michael Dukakis had approved the program that released Horton in the first place effectively sealed the fate of his presidential campaign. Spearheaded by campaign strategist Lee Atwater, the Bush campaign mercilessly used the Willie Horton case against Dukakis, effectively making him a co-defendant of the crimes that Horton committed in Maryland.
In Dukakis’ defense, he increased the Democrat vote from the 1984 election when Walter Mondale gathered 37.6 million votes against Reagan’s 54.5 million. While Bush Sr. handily secured his 1988 victory with 49.8 million votes, Dukakis added 4.2 million voters to his ranks compared to Mondale.
It ended up doing him no good, as he lost, but it makes it plausible that the addition of Lloyd Bentsen to the ticket helped reverse the voter loss that the Democrats had suffered since Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980. The problem for Dukakis-Bentsen was Dukakis, not Bentsen.
Tim Walz has a similar problem, although his general ideological position as governor of Minnesota places him further to the left than his predecessor from 36 years ago. But he is not as far to the left as Kamala Harris is—and she has the same Achilles heel in the southern border as Dukakis had in Willie Horton.
And that is not all. Harris has already laid out a radical, heavily left-leaning vision for what role government should play in people’s lives. During a speech in Wisconsin soon after the Republican convention, she promised that on her watch, the federal government would provide both child care and family leave—and make America’s taxpayers foot the bill. She also wants to expand the government’s role in health care; in the past, she has advocated a complete government takeover of the entire health care system—a single-payer model that she has since walked back from.
The retraction of support for a single-payer model is purely tactical; every Democrat presidential candidate since—actually—Michael Dukakis has endorsed the single-payer principle. Since President Obama got his reform through, introducing costly government subsidies for subpar health plans, it has become less popular on the political left to propose even more government involvement. However, that does not mean a President Kamala Harris would not sign a single-payer bill if Congress passed one. On the contrary, she would gladly do it, and win an ideological victory without having had to take the political risks associated with it.
This strategic approach to policy issues is in itself not controversial—politicians do it all the time. What matters here is the ideological message in her position on health care, child care, and family leave. By supporting an expansion of tax-paid programs in these areas, Harris is trying to bring the American welfare state closer to the Swedish original after which it was modeled. This means yet another sharp turn to the left, even for the Democratic Party.
If the Trump campaign exposes Harris as the radical she is, it will not matter who she picked for vice president. Tim Walz will go down in history as Lloyd Bentsen II. But he may himself derail the campaign if he underestimates his Republican opponent: while Lloyd Bentsen was up against the hapless Dan Quayle, J.D. Vance is no Dan Quayle. Vance is very intelligent, already politically savvy, and comes with a voter appeal that Quayle could never have summoned, even if his life depended on it.
READ NEXT
‘Young Leaders of the Iberosphere’ Programme Is Paving the Way for a Promising Future
Jaguar: All Virtue, No Vehicle
Mazan Affair: A Trial of Moral Misery