A Slamdance, Not a Wal(t)z

There has been a good deal of speculation about how and why Kamala Harris chose Tim Walz for her running mate.  There were the usual criteria of course—compatibility, comfort, geography, potential electoral impact, and resumé—all which certainly figured in the decision.  The real question, however, became why Minnesota governor Tim Walz was finally selected over the prohibitive favorite, Pennsylvania governor and rising party star, Josh Shapiro.

Although some analysts were dubious about the ability of a vice-presidential candidate to deliver his or her home state, most agreed that Shapiro, with a 61% approval rating, would enable Harris to nail down Pennsylvania, this year’s absolutely must-win state, an honor previously held by Florida and before that by Ohio.  Shapiro is young, articulate, a terrific orator, often compared to Barack Obama, and more than capable of eviscerating his opposite number, that bane of cat ladies everywhere, JD Vance.

Shapiro is also Jewish—very Jewish.  He would be the first person to occupy the vice-presidency while adhering to kosher culinary requirements.  Initially, Shapiro’s viability was questioned for precisely that reason—was the nation, in the grip of an upsurge in antisemitism, ready for a Jewish vice-president, especially since Harris has a Jewish husband herself?  But when she decided against Shapiro, the speculation did a 180-degree turn.  Many in the media, especially in conservative media, suggested that Harris failed to anoint Shapiro because she was somehow antisemitic, or at least that the Democratic Party was, and that Shapiro was shunned to kowtow to those sentiments.  Donald Trump, with his usual erudition, speculated that Shapiro would cost Harris what he referred to as her “small Palestinian base.” 

Others, without at all putting the Jewish question to bed, hypothesized that Shapiro might be insufficiently progressive for the Bernie/AOC wing of the party and added that he had mishandled a sexual harassment accusation against a key aide.  Walz, the reasoning went, was therefore selected as the “safer,” less courageous pick, even though Harris risked losing Pennsylvania by her unwillingness to bravely nominate a Jewish running mate.

All of this is hooey. 

To understand why Walz was precisely the correct choice, one need only to have watched Walz’s rollout at Temple University in Philadelphia.  Both Walz and Shapiro spoke—Shapiro to introduce Harris, who then introduced Walz.  The speeches by the two men were revealing.

The message was clearly to be that if Trump and Vance want a bare knuckles fight, they can have one.  Gone is Joe Biden’s bland, “We can do anything.  We’re the United States of America!” and Michelle Obama’s tragically naïve, “When they go low, we go high.”  This campaign was going to be more reminiscent of Sean Connery’s speech to Kevin Costner in The Untouchables.  “When he puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue!  That’s how you get Capone!”

Donald Trump, the sexual predator, fraudster, and convicted felon, and JD Vance’s alleged sexual encounter with living room furniture will therefore be in every vice-presidential speech.  Biden was understated as Obama’s attack dog, Tim Kaine could not get out a sentence in less than a minute, and Harris herself was restrained by Biden’s unwillingness to go for the throat.

Those days are over.

And so, both Shapiro and Walz delivered passionate, vitriolic attacks on both Trump and Vance.  Both enunciated the appropriate themes of the campaign, and both got the overflow crowd worked up to a bloodthirsty frenzy.

But there were subtle differences.  Shapiro, who clearly wants to be president and is currently feuding with John Fetterman as to who is the more ambitious, came across as just that—a man who would accept the second slot only as a steppingstone to the first.  As such, his attacks on Republicans, all delivered at peak volume with a knowing smirk, came across as just a bit more canned than those delivered by Walz.

He was also more, and there is not a better word for it, urbane.

Walz, on the other hand, delivered equally vicious barbs, but in a manner that suggested he might have said the same things at a backyard barbeque in Minnesota.  Instead of coming across like a man who was simply hewing to the party line, he seemed to be genuinely enjoying himself.  In addition, unlike Shapiro, the attack lines came out pure Middle America.  The effect was like the difference between using a standard metal claw hammer and a rubber mallet to pound in an object on a delicate surface.  They both get the job done but the mallet leaves no mark when you are finished.

The Pennsylvania risk is overblown as well.  Even if a vice-presidential candidacy guaranteeing a home state victory is in doubt, Shapiro’s ambition is not.  Whether or not he is on the ticket, if he wants to maintain his status in the party, he had better work like crazy to deliver Pennsylvania.  If Trump wins by nineteen electoral votes or less, Shapiro will be accused by many, including Fetterman, of failing to do all he could because he was pouting over being…passed over.

As I have written previously, the key to victory in November will be momentum.  The MAGA folks—they used to be called the Republican Party—are all too aware that at the moment they don’t have any.  Still, despite their increasingly desperate attempts to conjure up negative spins on Walz’s military record, his political stances, and likely how he coached high school linebackers, criticism of Harris’s selection for second on the ticket is unlikely to supercharge their campaign.  

Quite the reverse.  The choice of Walz seems inspired—and his opponents seem to know it.

(For a bit of bonus content, here is a link to a podcast by my wife’s favorite Constitutional historian. https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/sidebar/2024/08/yes-the-constitution-allows-changes-to-the-supreme-court-and-other-surprises-with-lawrence-goldstone/ )