Peggy Noonan

The race is deadlocked with six weeks to go and if you’re an undecided, unsure or wavering voter it looks like Awful vs. Empty.

Kamala Harris has made quite an impression. That walk is a stride, and she has appetite—she loves this thing, running for high office. She has sentiments—she loves to say what divides us isn’t as big as what unites us, which, though a dreadful cliché, is true.

But in terms of policy she is coming across as wholly without substance.

Joe Biden stepped aside, and Ms. Harris was elevated, two months ago. That is enough time at least to start making clear what she believes, wants and means to do. She hasn’t.

This week she couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a single question straight, and people could see it. She is an artless dodger.

In her unscripted 11-minute interview with ABC’s Philadelphia station on Tuesday, the reporter asked, meekly, for “one or two specific things you have in mind” to get prices down.

Mr. Harris: “Well, I’ll start with this: I grew up a middle-class kid. My mother raised my sister and me. She worked very hard. She was able to finally save up enough money to buy our first house when I was a teenager. I grew up in a community of hardworking people, you know, construction workers and nurses and teachers. And I try to explain to some people who may not have had the same experience, you know, if—but a lot of people will relate to this. You know, I grew up in a neighborhood of folks who were very proud of their lawn, you know? And I was raised to believe and to know that all people deserve dignity, and that we as Americans have a beautiful character, you know, we have ambitions and aspirations and dreams. But not everyone necessarily has access to the resources that can help them fuel those dreams and ambitions. So when I talk about building an opportunity economy, it is very much with the mind of investing in the ambitions and aspirations and the incredible work ethic of the American people . . .” On it went, with a few policy ideas tacked on at the end.

Also from the interview: “Focusing on, again, the aspirations and the dreams but also just recognizing that at this moment in time, some of the stuff we could take for granted years ago, we can’t take for granted anymore.” “And so my approach is about new ideas, new policies that are directed at the current moment, and also to be very honest with you, my focus is very much on what we need to do over the next ten, twenty years. To catch up to the 21st century around, again, capacity but also challenges.”

This is word-saying gibberish. Only when speaking of her personal biography does she seem authoritative. Otherwise she is airy, evasive, nonresponsive.

How to appeal to Trump voters who might be open to her? “I, based on experience, and a lived experience, know in my heart, I know in my soul, I know that the vast majority of us as Americans have so much more in common than what separates us. And I also believe that I am accurate in knowing that most Americans want a leader who brings us together as Americans . . .”

That isn’t the answer of a candidate trying to be forthcoming and using her limited time in an attempt to be better understood. It is the sound of someone running out the clock.

In an appearance Tuesday at the National Association of Black Journalists, Ms. Harris was asked about increasing her support among black men.

“The policies and the perspectives I have understands what we must do to recognize the needs of all communities, and I intend to be a president for all people . . .” Again, she spoke of her “economic opportunity tour.”

Why does she dodge away from clarity? Why doesn’t she take opportunities to deepen public understanding of her thinking?

Here are some guesses, one or more of which may be correct.

• Because she’s not that interested in policy. This would be strange, because politics is the policy business; that’s what politicians make. But she forged her political life in California, where politics is an offshoot of its other great industry, show business. It is possible that she views policy as just something you have to do to advance your personal standing and enjoy being on top. It is clear she has memorized certain position points (help small businesses) that have perhaps been urged on her by professionals who do politics for a living.
• Because she’ll figure it out later. Specificity divides while sentiment gathers.
• Because she doesn’t want you to understand where she stands. Because she’s more progressive than she admits, and there’s no gain in telling you now.
• Because at bottom she’s as progressive as Joe Biden, meaning as progressive as the traffic will bear. But that would mean she’s more of the same, so why talk about it?

Some supporters think she needs to be more “specific,” but it isn’t specificity per se that is the glaring omission. Her problem is not that she doesn’t say she’ll repeal section 13(c) of some regulatory act. No one knows what 13(c) is. What people want to hear, and deserve to hear, is her essential meaning and purpose as a political figure. It’s not about data points and the arcana of government; it’s about belief and the philosophical underpinnings of that belief.

What are her thoughts, right now, about illegal immigration and the border? After the past three years of a historic influx she said in the debate that she’d hire more border agents. Why? Toward what end, in pursuit of what larger goal?

Was the influx a good thing? Why? Does it constitute a national emergency? Why? What attitude does she bring to this crucial question?

Failing to speak plainly and deeply now about illegal immigration is political malpractice on a grand scale. There are other large questions. What philosophical predilection does she bring to taxing, spending, regulation, to the national debt?

She owes us these answers. It is wrong that she can’t or won’t address them. It is disrespectful to the electorate.

If voters don’t get a sense of her deeper beliefs they will think of her as a construct, something other people built so they can run the country as she does photo-ops. Half of America wonders who’s really running things as the Biden years ebb. They won’t want to wonder for another four years.

Which gets us back to Awful vs. Empty. When Americans feel that’s the choice and neither side gives them reason to believe otherwise, they’ll likely start to think in ways they believe practical. Empty means trouble, a blur when we need a rudder, a national gamble based on insufficient information. It means a policy regime that would be unpredictable, perhaps extreme. You don’t want that.

Awful is—well, awful. But he was president for four years, we didn’t all explode, institutions held, the threatened Constitution maintained. So—maybe that’s their vote. “Close your eyes and think of England.”

Unless of course in the next six weeks somebody surprises them, and impresses them.

He lost, she won, full stop.

Kamala Harris is a political athlete. And she can act—the amused, skeptical squint, the laughing tilt of the head, the hand on her chin. She was more interesting than Donald Trump, not only because she conveyed a greater air of dynamism but because she seemed interested in what was going on around her.

The two major headlines: First, Ms. Harris showed what she needed to show, that she is tough enough, bright enough, quick enough. People hadn’t really seen her tested. She had been elevated with mysterious speed in a drama whose facts we still don’t fully know. In the summer she made a good early impression with strong speeches and events. But she did all that on teleprompter. In the debate she wasn’t on teleprompter. She had to stand there and do it, and she did. Did she present herself as a plausible president? Yes.

Second, the incapacity of Mr. Trump. He was famously unable to portray her as outside the mainstream, but the news is he didn’t seem to try. He couldn’t prosecute his case because his sentences collapsed. He leaves words out, and he’ll refer to “he” and “them” and you’re not sure who he’s talking about. His mind has always pinballed, but Tuesday night the pinball machine seemed broken, like the flipper button wasn’t working and the launcher was clogged. He has been spoiled by his safe space, his rallies, where his weird free associations amuse the crowd and his non sequiturs are applauded as authenticity. That doesn’t work on a debate stage. It is strange he didn’t know this. And here is the news, for me. In the past it was possible to think he might make more sense next time. But I don’t think he can do better than this. I felt a lot of his supporters would be coming to terms with a deterioration in his ability to publicly present himself.

But here is an important sub-headline. Ms. Harris won shallowly. I mean not that she won on points, or that it was close—it wasn’t, she creamed him—but that she won while using prepared feints and sallies and pieces of stump speech, not by attempting to be more substantive or revealing. When you address questions in a straightforward way and reveal your thinking, you are showing respect. You’re showing you trust people to give you a fair hearing and make a measured decision. Voters can see it, and they appreciate it. They feel the absence of these things, too, and don’t like it.

She was often evasive, and full of clever and not-so-clever dodges. Trump supporters, and not only they, perceived a disparity in how the moderators treated the candidates. So did I. When Ms. Harris didn’t fully answer—even questions of major importance, such as immigration, the Afghanistan withdrawal, and her changes in political stands—they did not follow up or press her. I don’t remember a moment when anyone—including Mr. Trump—tried to pin her down. She got away with a lot of highly rehearsed glibness and often seemed slippery. Sometimes you have to slip and slide in politics but slipperiness doesn’t wear well.

Still, if you would be a Republican and president you must know how to ride with media predilections, how to be stern with your foe when the press won’t. And it’s hard to respect Mr. Trump for not calling the moderators on it in real time and then using it afterwards, like a blubbering baby, as an excuse for his failures.

We’ll see soon in polls the impact of her victory, whether it’s small or significant, and whether it changed much in the battleground states.

What should each candidate do now? I asked some Republican veterans, almost all of whom worked on George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, after the debate. One said there is nothing for either camp to do but focus on turnout. “I think we are beyond changing minds, and I doubt the ‘debate’ did much to change any minds or significantly reduce the number of undecided. I think both sides are down to the ground game.”

Another agreed, saying that experience and data had taught him the value of reaching out and knocking on doors: “The best way to get out the vote is face-to-face contact.” Another said, “‘Let Trump be Trump’ isn’t where the electorate is at, and at this point is kinda self-defeating.” Mr. Trump should make sure his base maintains its excitement: “Do as many Fox and OAN town halls as possible.” A fourth old hound said the Harris campaign “should have a full-court press to get young women to vote, starting with sororities” in North Carolina and Georgia. He was thinking of Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Ms. Harris and its potential impact.

She should also do interviews—a lot.

Should there be a second debate? Absolutely. With 7½ weeks to go there’s plenty of time, and it would serve the public in that the more information the better; the better you know them the better. It could be good for both candidates. For Ms. Harris it would be a chance to appear more substantive in terms of policy and to nail down what progress she made Tuesday night. Whatever you like or could like, she could deepen. If she wins, that deepening would help her presidency. And clearly she’s not afraid. Mr. Trump could use another debate to try to recover from whatever he just lost, and to see if he can make a coherent case against the current administration, and for change. I don’t know if he has what it takes to achieve that. (Mr. Trump said on Thursday that he will refuse a second debate, so maybe he wonders too. But he not infrequently changes his mind.)

Finally, yes, it is amazing that Ms. Swift’s endorsement could change the outcome of the election but: America. We’ve been in love with our entertainers and celebrities since forever. If Rudolph Valentino had come out in support of Calvin Coolidge in 1924, his landslide would have been even bigger.

Ms. Swift’s statement, released at the end of the debate, was a little master class in how to cloak a dramatic move that might invite charges of hubris in an air of velvety modesty. She urged her fans to read up on the issues and do more political research. She timed her announcement so that it came at the exact moment everyone was consumed and distracted by the debate, thus taking any hard edges off its impact. She sweetly offered that she felt she had to make her stand clear because there was an artificial-intelligence thing out there in which she appears, falsely, to be endorsing Mr. Trump, and unfortunately he posted it to his site. So she’s just trying to clear things up and correct the record. It went out to her 284 million followers on Instagram.

Ms. Swift’s a real athlete too. And there is no way, in a 50/50 race, her decision won’t have impact.

Next Tuesday’s presidential debate will be as important as everyone says. In a close race, a good performance by one candidate could be dispositive. More dramatically one might implode, as Joe Biden did in June. People will watch to see if it happens again. This is so far the only Trump-Harris debate scheduled, and may be both the first and last time we see the candidates together and get to compare and contrast their presentation and views. We should be ashamed both parties give us so little and we allow it.

What does Donald Trump have to do? He has to demonstrate he’s sane enough, stable enough and knowledgeable enough to make wavering, centrist and independent voters grow more comfortable with the idea of “The Trump Presidency, Act II.” How might he do that? If I were advising him I’d say by presenting himself as calm, reasonable, laid back, even friendly.

He should walk across the stage, give America a break and shake his opponent’s hand.

He should let the game come to him.

He shouldn’t start out swinging; he should answer questions with spirit but steadiness. This might have the added benefit of putting Kamala Harris off her game. She probably expects jumpy aggressions and sarcasm. She will no doubt come armed with a handful of well-prepared lines aimed at piercing his armor or deflecting his attacks. Maybe she’ll uncork one in a way or at a moment that makes her look aggressive. From that moment Mr. Trump would feel free to do what he by nature enjoys, which is attack and beat down.

Is it possible he’d take any or all such advice? Probably not! He has trouble corralling himself and doing the sensible thing. His supporters all know this. It is a constant frustration to them.

In any case he should and probably will tie Ms. Harris to this idea: If you don’t think Joe Biden worked out so well, she is his second term. Did you like Afghanistan, high prices, illegal aliens and the homeless flooding the streets? She will bring you more. She will bring you no relief. The same people who ran Mr. Biden will run her, only they’ll be more progressive.

What does Ms. Harris have to demonstrate? That she is strong. That she is prepared. That she is smart. That she has sufficient gravitas. That she sometimes gets a thoughtful look because sometimes she has thoughts.

One of her supporters said this week that she should see the debate as a continuation of the process in which she introduces herself and what she stands for. She should, he said, embrace those parts of Bidenism she believes worked or are popular. James Carville, in an interview with Peter Hamby of Puck, suggested she should argue America currently has record employment, a record stock market, our first interest-rate cut in a long time. “She’s gonna say, ‘You want to come in and disrupt all of the things that we made progress on?’ ” Mr. Carville thinks this is a “pretty good” answer.

Right now and for the first time since her rise, Ms. Harris seems stalled, as if everyone around her is tight, tired and overthinking things. In the last week of August, when America was vacationing and distracted by back-to-school sales, her campaign announced that Ms. Harris would finally give her first interview as the nominee, accompanied by Gov. Tim Walz, her running mate.

I thought at the time: That’s not an interview, it’s a buddy movie. But more than that I thought: Oh no, they’re being clever. He takes the heat off; if she goes dry he’ll jump in. But this isn’t the time for clever, everyone sees through it and is tired of clever. They’d prefer honest if awkward: Ms. Harris getting grilled, and some of it works and some of it doesn’t, and then a few days later she’s grilled again by another reporter and it’s a little better, and so on. Genuineness is something people would be so relieved to see. Even imperfect genuineness—so what? Donald Trump isn’t imperfect?

More seriously, when CNN’s Dana Bash asked why she’d changed her mind on so many key issues, the vice president’s immediate response was both odd and too rehearsed. It was to insist “my values have not changed.” First, what does that even mean, if you don’t define your values? But second, why did she change her mind? She has to be able to explain her policy shifts to voters. In any case, was she signaling to progressive groups that as soon as she’s elected, and after they’ve stuck with her, she will become more progressive again? That’s a funny message to give when you’re trying to get the votes of nonprogressives.

Ms. Harris is doing something I’ve never seen, which is to go more moderate in her views and at the same time not come across as more moderate.

Soon after she filled in more of her economic plan, which now famously involves raising the top marginal income-tax rate on wages from 37% to 39.6% and capital gains from 20% to 28%, raising the federal corporate tax rate, and imposing a new tax on unrealized capital gains. The last is called a billionaire’s tax, and is said to be aimed only at taxpayers with wealth greater than $100 million. But what American hears “tax increases” and thinks “They’ll never raise ’em on me”?

Timing is everything. Compared with four years ago, Americans feel less safe on the streets, more vulnerable to mayhem, more overwhelmed with illegal immigration and people living in tents by the train station. They see deterioration, not improvement. A lot of people will think, “And in return for this we get to pay more taxes?”

If I were advising Ms. Harris, I would say she needs to establish her good faith, to convey a measuredness. The example I think of is this. Parents spent the pandemic monitoring their kids’ classroom Zooms and not liking everything they were hearing. In ensuing years this resulted in eruptions and rebellions at school board meetings and fights over what was on the library reading list.

It’s quieted down now, but the wounds and division remain. No one expects Ms. Harris to be “on the side of the parents.” She’s best friends with the teachers unions. But is she the kind of school-board member who has a natural respect for the parents? An ability to see their side, to give them a good-faith hearing? Or is she the school board chairperson who rolls her eyes when they stand and speak, and asks security to shut off the mic?

More and more I am getting the impression this will be a path election, not a person election.

Once you chose John F. Kennedy—young, bright, vigorous—and he led you down a path. You chose Ronald Reagan, and he led you down a path. You picked the person and that person said, “This way” and cut the path through the forest.

I’m feeling that a lot of people this year will be choosing the path, not the person. They’ll put up with the person, but it’s the path they want. And I’m not sure people want to go down the Blue Path any deeper than they already have.

Kamala Harris’s speech was fine, and delivered with assurance. I prefer “Ask not what your country can do for you” to “Never do anything half-assed,” but tastes vary. Too soon we were hearing phrases like “assure access to capital.” The text didn’t have the feeling of a story being told from some previously unknown inner depth. It stuck to résumé values and life experiences, rather than a sharing of her thinking. I’m not sure it advanced her position with those who aren’t already with her.

There is a small but persistent cloud that follows her, which can be distilled down to the idea that she was swiftly and mysteriously elevated to her current position, that we don’t know everything about how that happened, and that people aren’t fully comfortable with it. I don’t think she succeeded in lightening or removing the cloud.

The convention itself was a great success, with some sharp and memorable moments. The crowd chanting a full-throated “Bring them home” when Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg made an eloquent, pitch-perfect appeal for the hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7, including their son, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23. Seventeen-year-old Gus Walz crying, pointing at his father at the podium, and saying, “That’s my dad” was another. The fabulously human and hokey roll call of the states—unexpectedly, my eyes filled as they played “Born in the U.S.A.” and Gov. Phil Murphy spoke one of New Jersey’s unofficial anthems: “We’re from Jersey, baby, and you’re not.”

The convention’s overall impression was summed up by a relative who, watching on the second night, observed: “This is what they’re saying: ‘We’re a grand coalition, we’re more of a vibe than a party, and we’re not him.’ Plenty of people will want to join that.”

There was hunger—“We’ll sleep when we’re dead”—and boldness, too. They stole traditional Republican themes (faith, patriotism) and claimed them as their own. Also impressive was the degree to which they cast a magic conjuring sorcery spell in which viewers got the feeling the whole purpose of the Democratic Party is to break away from a grim and doom-laden reigning regime . . . when they’ve been in charge for 3½ years.

Something else. The Democratic Party has more substantial characters of recent American history to parade around on stage. The Clintons, the Obamas, Jesse Jackson, who, whatever your view of him, was there, on the balcony at the Lorraine Motel, when Martin Luther King was shot. This conveyed a party with a storied past, and if you join it you’re joining something real. The Republican Party, in its great toppling, has rejected its past. You lose something when you cast your history aside, and all you’ve got for prime time is Trump sons.

And now the race. It’s a toss-up, no one knows where this is going.

Ms. Harris is limited in this respect: She never had to be anything but a person of the left to rise in the Democratic bastion of California. She never had to talk to a conservative or a Republican. What she had to do to succeed in her Democratic state was juggle different party coalitions. She could commiserate with big donors at a Bel Air fundraiser and roll her eyes at some reference to those Democratic Socialist of America types. Yes, they get a little carried away. She could meet with members of a progressive social-justice organization and roll her eyes again when they complained of donor clout: Look, we have to live in the real world; we need money to do what’s right. That’s where her political muscles were developed.

This week she appeared before some smallish crowds and gatherings, holding a mic, walking along a stage, and speaking publicly in a way that might have been planned but wasn’t scripted. And here you saw her limit as a public figure: Unscripted, she’s word-saying. She isn’t having a thought and looking for the right words to express it, she’s saying words and hoping they’ll amount to a thought. She isn’t someone who never had a thought. She seems more like someone who has learned to question whether her thoughts should be expressed.

She’ll have to get over that. She just did a pretty good job of talking to America. Now she’ll have to do it every day.

Donald Trump is famously off his game. He knows his old insult shtick isn’t working. Some of his supporters say, “All he has to do is read from the teleprompter!” but they’re wrong. He’s no good when he reads from the prompter, he doesn’t respect what’s on it. It bores him, and he talks like a tranquilized robot. He knows what he does well—shock, entertain, mention two or three big issues. He’s having trouble making a stinging critique of Democratic policy because he’s insulted everything over the years, and when he says something’s bad now it just seems part of his act and doesn’t land.

You can see him at the podium mentally ruffling around in his toolbox, looking for the right wrench or hammer. Will he find it? Or revert to form and do “Commie Kamala” and “Low IQ”? His fortunes may depend on the answer.

Trump supporters have too much invested in what a disaster Ms. Harris’s campaign was in 2019, and it was. They expect a repetition. But five years ago she was a lone rider out there on her own. This time she’s vice president, with a wholly committed party behind her and a deep bench of expertise. Trump people assume she’ll have a series of gaffes, and they’ll just have to say, “See?” They think in the Sept. 10 debate he’ll walk in like the Hulk and squish her like a peanut. I’m not sure this will happen. She’ll show discipline this time.

Her people will figure out how to finesse the question of giving interviews. Maybe they’ll start with a star-struck and sympathetic local reporter, to build her confidence. Maybe they’ll graduate to a sit-down with a rising network star (old phrase!) who very much wants to be a White House correspondent and tailors his questions accordingly. As for news conferences, maybe there won’t be a big one, or three, but a series of five-minute “impromptu” ones, perhaps near the plane, where reporters won’t get to plan or strategize questions. Maybe the relative regularity of it, and the unofficial character of it—her hair blowing in the wind—will start to give the impression she does a lot of press conferences.

In any case, her weak points aren’t really what the Trump people think—popping off in arias that go nowhere, fumbling when pressed. Her real weak point is policy. She will be perceived by many voters as farther to the left than they want to go.

One of the reasons Democrats had such unity this week is that with Ms. Harris’s elevation, the progressives kind of won a long struggle. The moderate Hillary Clinton was defeated by the seemingly more progressive Barack Obama in 2008. The moderate Joe Biden beat all comers to his left but, in his economic and social policy, tugged progressive because that’s where the rising power in his party was. Ms. Harris is of and from that rising power. We’re going to start hearing the phrase “pragmatic progressive” in the coming months.

This is going to be all about policy.

Kamala Harris just won her third week in a row of the first three weeks of the hundred-day campaign. She kept everyone in the political class wondering who her vice-presidential nominee would be, made a surprising choice, and unveiled him at a Philadelphia rally that was boffo. Now the runup to the convention, which has so far included packed rallies in Eau Claire, Wis., and Detroit, where a crowd packed into a hangar, with Air Force Two in the background. She’s stealing Donald Trump’s signature move. I continue to believe the woman isn’t creating a movement but a movement is creating her, and showing up.

Mr. Trump spent most of the week having what a GOP strategist told Politico is a “public nervous breakdown.” He has been particularly Saturnine and gloomy in his late-night postings. At every event since she was (still somewhat mysteriously!) elevated to her position as presidential nominee, most everything has been, for Ms. Harris, bright good fortune.

For the first time this week I thought people were wondering about the impact of Mr. Trump’s age. He is 78. He hasn’t been able to focus, make his case. Is he, in another irony of 2024, turning into Joe Biden?

On Thursday afternoon, at a news conference in a Mar-a-Lago ballroom, Mr. Trump aimed to put his supporters’ anxieties aside. He was not free-associative as usual, but kept to talking points. He was somber and darkly lit. He talked about the dangers facing the world—“in my opinion, we are very close to a world war”—and seemed to imply this is no time for unsteady hands. He spoke of illegal immigration and inflation. Ms. Harris is “barely competent.” “Hillary was smart.” He offered three dates for debates.

It was OK. It was proof of life, and a certain verve. He went long, took on all comers, and underlined, legitimately, that Ms. Harris is getting away with not doing news conferences or interviews.

On the choice of Gov. Tim Walz: He was a relatively moderate liberal congressman for 12 years and has been a highly progressive leftist in his past 5½ years as governor. Republicans will be sure to make his positions clear.

But the headline in Ms. Harris’s choice is that the ticket she has created is full-on progressive. No mix, no shade. She’s cementing in support for one part of the party and a particular vision of the future. She could have reached to the center, with a relative moderate like Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, to broaden her pool of voters, and didn’t.

I believe this means she’s not going broad but deep. She doesn’t intend to win this by going an inch to the right but through left-wing turnout—the young, minorities, those who haven’t steadily voted in the past, if ever. She is giving them a jolt, a straight shot of progressive: The future is left-wing. Getting them to show up is the strategy. Centrists and Trump-rejecting Republicans aren’t the central concern. If they can be won over through small symbolic or stylistic moves, fine, everyone’s welcome. But they’re not a focus. Getting out our people is the focus.

A few weeks ago I said she’d shown no sign of wanting to go to the center and may in fact think this is the time for a battle between rightist and leftist policy. Seems to me that’s what she’s doing.

I don’t know if this is a shrewd strategy to achieve victory in November, but it strikes me as a signal moment and, in the largest sense, not constructive. When you need voters who aren’t in your tent, you moderate. When you stick with your side, when it’s all or nothing, you go on, if you win, to operate in an all-or-nothing style, which in a 50/50 country causes more tension, anger and division. You aren’t persuading the other guy, you’re just overwhelming the other guy. It’s heady, and polarizing.

What progressives vs. conservatives guarantees is a country with two sharply divided blocs, with less give at the edges.

As for Mr. Walz himself, I think the Harris campaign fully understands what he stands for but assumes voters in general will be confused by the way he comes across. How is that? They’ve pushed him from the beginning as a regular guy who looks like a Republican, he hunts, ice-fishes, you want to have a beer with him. “The one thing about Tim Walz is that he kind of dropped out of a Norman Rockwell painting,” David Axelrod said on CNN. “He looks and sounds like small-town America.”

Fair enough. That’s what everyone in Washington and New York is saying: He looks like a centrist.

As I listened, my first thought was: We’re a nation of casting directors now. That is how Mr. Trump thinks: He casts people in roles based on broadcast TV values. Tall, gray-haired, distinguished Rex Tillerson looked like a secretary of state, so let’s make him secretary of state.

My second thought: I think Democratic strategists are misreading their guy. We are being instructed that he is “Minnesota nice.” He always gets personal. What I think I’m seeing is Midwestern smoothie. This is a gifted actor, a natural who plays the part of the affable Midwesterner really well. But he gets pretty lippy pretty fast; he’s a hot figure, not a warm one.

On MSNBC in December: “I think any time you can highlight how strange these people are, it’s a good thing.” “I don’t need (Mike Johnson) giving me a sermon, I need him to live one.” On CBS in 2023: Republicans are “down there debating whether slavery had a value to it.” At a rally this week: “These guys are creepy and yes, just weird as hell.” In the “White Dudes for Harris” Zoom call, referring to Mr. Trump: “Make that bastard wake up afterwards and know that a black woman kicked his ass and sent him on the road.”

Excuse me, that is many things, but it isn’t Midwestern nice. He looks as if he likes Trump voters. But listening to him this week I thought: He doesn’t, not at all.

Democratic political professionals at this moment are excited by meanness, just as so many MAGA people are. It would be better if, instead, they leaned away from it, in contrast, and didn’t lean in. Hot is more alienating than they think. Ask Mr. Trump.

It is widely reported that Ms. Harris’s decision hinged on personal vibrations. I suspect this was put out there as a head-feint to obscure, after the announcement, how far to the left Mr. Walz is. It may be true, or partially true, but since when do presidential candidates have to have “chemistry” with their running mates? Jack Kennedy didn’t bond with Lyndon Johnson, Boston needed Houston, full stop. Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush because he was tired, Bush had come in second in the primary and was a moderate, so take him. They grew to appreciate each other. That’s the most you can hope for. Barack Obama needed a white haired establishmentarian who didn’t frighten the horses. It wasn’t personal. Anyway, this line strikes me as more of the increasing babyishness of high politics.

Those who think about politics and history as a profession can’t resist comparing presidential years. “This is 1968 all over again.” “We’re back to the dynamics of ’72.” We do this because we know political history and love it, and because there are always parallels and lessons to be learned.

But it should be said as a reminder: This year isn’t like any previous time.

This is the year of the sudden, historically disastrous debate, the near-assassination of one of the nominees, the sudden removal of the president from his ticket, the sudden elevation of a vice president her own party had judged a liability, and her suddenly pulling even in a suddenly truncated campaign.

We have never had this year. And it continues to astound.

Kamala Harris just got two excellent weeks in the clear. Donald Trump’s campaign had to take her down early or at least hit her hard—and didn’t. She has the wind at her back; he’s scattered and stuck on the back of his heels. This week she had a good rally in Atlanta; he went before a hostile National Association of Black Journalists, was taken aback by his first questioner’s accusatory tone, matched her energy, and revealed, if you didn’t know, how cutting and personal the coming months will be.

What is remarkable is how surprised the Trump campaign seems to have been by Ms. Harris. Why? Smart people understood Joe Biden would eventually have to step aside, and she was his most likely replacement. Why have they responded as if shocked? We have a trough of videos of her talking, it’s devastating. Where is it? Is that all you’ll need to make a coherent case? When are you going to locate the meaning of this thing?

“San Francisco liberal,” “way too radical.” All that feels tired, the reflex of an aged muscle. It sounds like the 1990s. This isn’t the ’90s. New ages need new arguments, or at least arguments freshly cast.

Can Mr. Trump shift gears? He grew up, as I did, watching “The Ed Sullivan Show.” I’m sure it was on every Sunday night at 8 at the Trump house in Queens. On that show you saw every week the great Borscht Belt comics of 1950-70. Their timing—“Take my wife—please!”—is ingrained in him. What he does now is shtick, because he likes to entertain and is a performer. The boat’s sinking, the battery’s spitting, the shark’s coming! As Hannibal Lecter said, “I’d love to have you for dinner!”

This works so perfectly for those who support him. For everyone else it’s just more evidence of psychopathology. He has to freshen up his act. Can he?

Ms. Harris will dominate the coming week with the unveiling of her vice-presidential choice. Then there will be the convention, in which they’ll pull out all stops. And then August will be over. Meaning a third of the 100-day campaign will be over. Does Mr. Trump know that he’s fighting for his life?

I want to take a quick look at some factors that are major pluses for Ms. Harris.

• She is new. She seems a turning of the page away from Old Old Biden and Old Old Trump. She looks new, like a new era. She displays vigor and the joy of the battle. The mainstream media is on her side. Coverage hasn’t been tough or demanding.

• On policy she is bold to the point of shameless. This week she essentially said: You know those policies I stood for that you don’t like? I changed my mind! Her campaign began blithely disavowing previous stands, with no explanation. From the New York Times’s Reid Epstein: “The Harris campaign announced on Friday that the vice president no longer wanted to ban fracking, a significant shift from where she stood four years ago.” Campaign officials said she also now supports “increased funding for border enforcement; no longer supported a single-payer health insurance program; and echoed Mr. Biden’s call for banning assault weapons but not a requirement to sell them to the federal government.” It’s remarkable, she’s getting away with it, and it’s no doubt just the beginning. It will make it harder for the Trump campaign with its devastating videos.

Will the left of her party let her tack toward moderation? Yes. She’s what they’ve got, and in any case people on the wings of both parties have a way of recognizing their own. Progressives aren’t protesting her new stands: That’s the dog that didn’t bark.

• She too is a born performer. She knows what she’s doing when she’s campaigning. She is less sure of what she’s doing when she’s governing. But she gets a race. Running for the 2020 Democratic nomination, she wasn’t good at strategy or policy, but the part involving performing and being a public person and speaking with merry conviction—she gets that and is good at it.

• She is beautiful. You can’t take a bad picture of her. Her beauty, plus the social warmth that all who have known her over the years speak of, combines to produce: radiance. It is foolish to make believe this doesn’t matter. Politicians themselves are certain it matters, which is why so many in that male-dominated profession have taken to Botox, fillers, dermabrasion, face lifts, all the cosmetic things. Because they’re in a cosmetic profession.

• She has a wave of pent-up support behind her. By November we’ll know if something big happened. Barack Obama deliberately, painstakingly put new constituencies together. He created a movement. It had fervor and energy. What we may see this year is something different—that a movement created Kamala Harris. That is, the old constituencies held, maintained fervor and rose again when Mr. Biden stepped aside and Ms. Harris was put on top. I’m not sure we’ve seen that before.

She has many particular challenges. One is this: When you see Mr. Trump, that’s Trump. He is what you think he is. He doesn’t hide much. You look at him and think (pro or con), OK, I get it, I know who that guy is. When you see Ms. Harris, is that Harris? Is what she is showing you her? You wonder, “Is this real and genuine?” I wonder how she’ll address that or answer it.

Another: She stumbles in interviews. Will she try to get away with not doing any?

Another: People will continue to wonder how liberal she is, and how strong she is, but I think an equally or more important question will be how serious she is. Does she think seriously, deeply, soberly? I haven’t seen her betray this tendency. Mr. Obama was a serious man, Hillary Clinton was fully understood as a serious woman. (That’s why her campaign could produce and she could capitalize on the famous “3 a.m. phone call” ad.) Is Ms. Harris? Is she a credible commander of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

Some will respond, “But Donald Trump isn’t serious!” My answer would be: That’s why he lost the popular vote twice. If Democrats lose the popular vote, they almost certainly lose the election.

Mr. Trump himself would reply: I controlled the nuclear arsenal for four years. Nothing blew up.

To the president’s speech explaining his decision to step aside: I wanted to be moved and informed and wound up impatient.

It was a speech that carried a high degree of difficulty. A president of the United States with six months to go can’t declare to the world, “I’d love to stay longer but let’s face it, I’m half gaga.” Nor could he quite admit his party forced him out—that concedes too much volatility in the American political scene. But he could speak somewhat candidly and suggestively about reality, and fill in important informational gaps, while also (and protectively) projecting a certain latent strength. Instead the proud old man insisted on his greatness and centrality. The only sparks came from the banalities crashing into the clichés. The gift of the speech was that it underlined the rightness of his decision to step aside, and his party’s decision to push him.

Vice President Kamala Harris must beware of his trying to glom on to the action and insert himself into the campaign. He won’t want to stay in the Oval Office doing quiet work, his spirit will demand involvement. Statements meant to be supportive will sound patronizing. It will make it harder for her to turn the page. Donors, it’s time to suggest you want very much to contribute to his presidential library and hope you’ll feel free to in December, as the year closes.

Now to the hundred-day race.

I had long thought Kamala Harris couldn’t beat Donald Trump. That’s wrong. She can.

We’re a 50/50 country, each side gets 40 going in, you fight for the rest but it can always go either way. As people who speak the technical language of politics say, Mr. Trump has a high floor but a low ceiling.

But beyond that, something’s happening.

Ms. Harris has not, in five years on the national stage, shown competence. She is showing it now, and that is big news. Her rollout this week demonstrated talent and hinted she may be a real political athlete.

Her past and famous verbal embarrassments, which shaped her public reputation, almost all took place in interviews and ad libbed arias. They obscured a real proficiency.

She was striking and strong in this week’s speeches in Milwaukee and Houston. She knows how to act a speech. When she is scripted she is good. That isn’t all put-down. She knows what a good speech is. She can judge it, recognize good material. Not all candidates can. Most can’t. It is its own talent.

Milwaukee especially had power. Its theme: “We’re not going back.” We’re not going back to Jan. 6, 2021, to the old ways, to unfreedom, to racism, sexism, to Trumpian America. We’re going forward into something new and exciting. She was positing that it is bigger than her.

Among those who follow politics closely and are highly online for political content, views of Ms. Harris hardened long ago. But to those of relaxed engagement, especially the young, she will be a new figure. They’ll be seeing her for the first time. They’ll be open to what they see.

Her party is newly alive and loaded for bear. This is what top Trump staffers feared, according to Tim Alberta’s heavily reported work in the Atlantic. They didn’t fear Joe Biden. What they feared was “institutional Democrats,” in the words of Susie Wiles. The Democratic Party is a machine, a vast network of groups and money lines that knows how to get out their base and a would-be base. A deteriorated Joe Biden couldn’t fully capitalize on this. A dispirited party wouldn’t fully produce it.

But a new and revived candidate who woke everybody up? That would be a danger.

There is discernible spirit already among the young, among liberal women, black women. In my town I am seeing the suddenly clenched jaw of the woman who backed Hillary, was devastated by 2016, and has one last chance to take it to Mr. Trump and get a woman over the line. It is the Revenge of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuit. It will have power.

Online, the rise of the TikTok voters, the Harris supporters and their Brat video memes. They have taken Ms. Harris’s past incoherent statements and elevated them into their own Dadaesque art form. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? Ha ha! I love Venn diagrams. It is strangely mesmerizing. I started to think this isn’t idiocy, it’s Ezra Pound. This would be an unalloyed part of the sheer joy of politics if TikTok weren’t a Chinese espionage operation.

“Obama hasn’t endorsed her yet.” Barack Obama isn’t a guy who joins a chorus. He deploys himself carefully, for maximum impact. Wait for a magical rally. It will be like the one where the Kennedy family anointed him during the 2008 Democratic primary. Mr. Obama had a real coalition. He is going to get it out.

Finally, mainstream media will want to get back onside. They just did Joe Biden in, they’re not going to do in his heir. Also: Donald Trump, so what the heck.

In the end it will come down to issues and positions. She should scramble toward the center and try to hold it every day. It isn’t at all clear that is her intention. In her Thursday speech to the teachers union she took straight, down-the-line progressive postures.

Maybe she thinks all the common wisdom is wrong: She can win through a titanic battle of left and right. Maybe she can. What that will look like will matter a lot.

A final note. Everything is about to get meaner, more vicious and primal.

Biden supporters were deep down unsure, and it made them milder. Ms. Harris’s energy revives the party’s hunger; its angers will be more awake. Mr. Trump and his forces can’t not be mean, it is their essence when threatened.

Here is some urgently meant advice. The American political story right now is one of instability. We claim to be the indispensable nation, the biggest power, the secure one that can be trusted with the nuclear arsenal. If you would be all-powerful you must be an obviously stable political entity. We have been failing at this for some time and are failing now. It will have reverberations down the road.

*   *   *

For now, to cool things:

Stop showing pictures of Donald Trump with blood running down his face. Stop obsessing on the assassination attempt. It excites the unstable. I can do that too. The sick and the evil don’t need more inspirations.

Stop obsessing publicly over the inadequacy of the Secret Service. (Washington, obsess on it quietly, and fix it.) It tells the sickest among us how easy it is to get around security and get your shot. We have to stop telling them this.

America’s enemies are excited by vulnerability, weakness, a sense things are scattered. On an average day key figures in our government—the secretaries of state and defense, heads of intelligence and domestic agencies—are on the road, in the conference in Prague and the meeting in Seoul. Right now, with the aged president and the volatile politics, they should stop, stay close to home, be in their offices in Washington.

Be there, not on planes and in hotel rooms. The look of solidity is almost as good as the real thing.

I will make something clear before sharing some honest, perhaps startling thoughts. I did not support either of the major party presidential candidates in 2016 and wrote about it here. I could not endorse either in 2020, and explained why here. I fully expect my third consecutive write-in this November, for the same reasons as stated in my 2020 column, plus the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and the attempt to overturn the results of the election, which was not a failure of “decorum” and “norms” but something else and, I believe, more sinister.

But I strongly believe that in my profession and as far as you are able you must not let your views and convictions become cataracts over your eyes that cloud your vision. You have to see as clearly as you can and say what you see. And you must be alive to the spirit of things, and their meaning.

I state all this for clarity’s sake as the political year heats up. If I say the Republicans had a stupendous convention I am not saying I am Trumpist; if I urge Democrats to climb their way out of the Slough of Despond I am not declaring myself a Democrat. It has been said of this column that it does balls and strikes, and I take it as a compliment but I don’t think it’s true. Umpires don’t tell the pitcher to try a fastball or the batter to shift his stance. I do. My advice to both parties is shaped by my thoughts, which are those of a political conservative. I want both parties to be clean and constructive and to shine, and I want to be moved by their excellence.

And so, to the Republican National Convention: It was stupendous, a triumph in every way from production through pronounced meaning and ability to reach beyond the tent. It moved me. Madeline Brame, speaking of the stabbing death in New York of her son, and District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s “soft on crime” response, moved me. The Gold Star families whose sons and daughters died at the Abbey Gate during the botched withdrawal from Kabul and were later abandoned by the White House moved me. What love—and what an indictment.

The convention was wild in the way things that are alive are wild. Harmeet Dhillon covered her head with a shawl to sing a Sikh prayer; Amber Rose, the beautiful young woman with face tattoos being cheered for speaking about what it is to support Donald Trump in her media world, and why she is willing to pay the price; Shabbos Kestenbaum, the Harvard grad suing Harvard for discrimination over its failures after Oct. 7; J.D. Vance’s mother throwing kisses to the crowd as it chanted her name, and her son saying maybe they’ll have her 10th anniversary clean and sober in the White House. The citizens were so much more eloquent than the professionals.

And of course Sean O’Brien, head of the Teamsters, railing against corporate greed to a Republican convention whose delegates warmly applauded.

And none of that was even the headline. The headline: This wasn’t a divided party, it was a party united. It wasn’t only Mr. Trump’s party, it was an explicitly Trumpian party.

We saw something epochal: the finalization and ratification of a change in the essential nature of one of the two major political parties of the world’s most powerful nation. It is now a populist, working-class, nationalist party. That is where its sympathies, identification and affiliation lie. There will be shifts, stops and accommodations in the future, no party ever has a clear line, history intervenes, but it is changed, and there will be no going back.

This was a party that at least for a week could turn the page on its obsessions. Election denialism was out, a post-DEI future in.

Observers have noted how joyous the delegates seemed, and they did. It is not only that they believe the assassination attempt, and Mr. Trump’s response to it, which has entered American political mythology, seemed to confer an air of the mystical and an affirmation of their loyalty. They were also happy because it’s settled now, and they won.

The first time this Republican Party gathered it was 2016 and the mood was darker, defensive around the edges. For many it was their first convention. The party was split. People were less sure of things than they said. Does a handful of real and legitimate grievances amount to a philosophy? I own a string of dry cleaners in Indianapolis, and I’m up against the Bushes and Skull and Bones. Maybe the establishment would strike back and smite them in November.

All that is over. A movement that was a joke nine years ago is a party now. Its members are certain they will win in November because they believe the vast majority of Americans feel just like them: a hard no on illegal immigration, unstopped street crime, foreign entanglements. They believe they speak for normal people. Meaning in spite of past apocalyptic talk of civil war, they believe the majority of America is still normal. And like them. There was a funny little affirmation in that.

In any case the long-heralded change has happened, and will have some real part in shaping American politics in the 21st century.

Why did Mr. Trump pick Mr. Vance? For intellectual heft? Sure—he’s policy-focused and fluent. As an attack dog? It’s not as if Mr. Trump needs one but sure, Mr. Vance, in his brief political life, has shown he isn’t shy to pull off the scab. But he is interesting and something new, and the choice strikes me as revealing about Mr. Trump. When he first ran, and in the first years of his presidency, he flailed about because he didn’t know the implications of his own policies. Some of those policies were new to him, a grab bag based on whatever the crowd cheered. In choosing Mr. Vance, Mr. Trump is saying: I know and have embraced a specific policy approach grounded in particular principles and assumptions, and I will institute it. Trumpism has journeyed from the chaotic to the intentional.

It should be added that it was creepy to see members of the Trump family dominating prime speaking slots all week. This was carelessly cultish, and in its carelessness insolent. Mr. Trump’s speech was surprisingly muted, scattered and low-energy. It lacked drama even though he was narrating what it is like to be shot.

To give you a sense of how powerful I think all this has been, I have a feeling it’s going to change the Democratic Party in the coming weeks.

They are professionals; they saw what Milwaukee was. They want to be bold too, they want to be winners, they want to unite and turn the page. Mr. Vance is 39 and about to ignite imaginations. Everything feels open.

Do the Democrats have a golden magic pony among them? Is that what it takes to change? To win? They’re going to find out.

A final point. We have, many of us, for some time—months, certainly the past few weeks—felt various degrees and kinds of horror. But oh these are exciting times. Things are moving, shifting. Again, this is big history. Hold on to your hat.

Oh no, not again. I got that feeling you get of chaos and horror and no one in charge. That terrible, cratering feeling you’ve had before.

I was watching it live, on television, as I readied to go to dinner. Donald Trump was in a red MAGA hat, talking about the border. I turned away for a moment. Then I heard a scream and looked back at the screen. The podium was empty. Mr. Trump seemed beneath it, with Secret Service agents running toward him, surrounding him. There was more screaming than seems apparent in the replays.

I texted my dinner friend: “Something happened.” I called a relative, said put on the TV. We watched as Mr. Trump was hauled up. We saw the blood near his ear. When they trundled him off and he threw up his fist, pumped it at the crowd and shouted, “Fight,” my relative said, “Well, that’s over.” Meaning the election. Meaning you don’t give America an image like that and go on to lose, you give America an image like that and it enters political mythology forever.

Mr. Trump had heard at least one shot, maybe a few. One grazed his ear. He hit the deck, was lifted up in shock, pale. He should have been swiftly rushed from the stage. But no, this is the great genius of American political theater and the reflex kicked in, the same reflex that kicked in after he had Covid and was returned to the White House from the hospital, and wanted to pose on the White House balcony in a Superman shirt with a big S, and somebody talked him out of it. So too at the rally Saturday—he got to his feet, he didn’t wipe the blood from his face, he wanted you to see and understand the whole picture. He got his look of tough-guy fury, the one he showed for weeks walking into court in New York, the one on the mug shot. He raised that fist, pumped it, shouted “Fight,” as part of the crowd began to chant “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

It was epic. Whatever you feel about him, whatever your stand, grant him one of the great gangsta moves of American political history.

An hour or so later a friend called, a journalist. I told him of my relative’s reaction. He said he wasn’t sure, we are living in a time of such turbulence, too much drama and hatred, maybe in November people will vote for calm. Silence. I said, “But Joe Biden doesn’t make anyone feel calm.” He’s angry, resentful, may not finish the thought. “He makes everyone nervous.”

Beyond all that is the crushing knowledge that this is bad for America, bad for its morale, for its confidence in the idea of its continuance. And of course it is terrible in the eyes of the world, more proof that we can’t hold it together. Europe was asleep when it happened, it was just after midnight in Paris and Berlin, and when they woke up to the news it was clear that the target of the assassination attempt wasn’t seriously wounded and had gone home, and the would-be assassin dead. Still, an American living in England wrote from there, crestfallen: “Our beautiful country, in the gutter.”

That was a better, truer sentiment than the responses of our political leaders, whose reactions have seemed so harrowingly pro forma. “Violence has no place in our country.” They always say those rote and vacuous words. But it does have a place here, it claimed it long ago; that’s our problem. As I write, they are calling the 20-year-old would-be assassin “a loner.” They have been calling assassins and mass murderers loners since I was a child, since Lee Harvey Oswald. For loners, they sure are a big group.

Here might—might, if we aren’t past this—be a better response from the famous. “America, I love you and am of you and grew up here and know your heart. We beg you, and will do our part, at least for a moment, to show real regard and affection for whoever you feel is ‘the other side.’” If you are anti-Trump, here is something deserving praise: His supporters left that rally last night shaken and full of woe and yet many stopped, kindly, to tell reporters what they saw and experienced, so that everyone might better understand what had transpired. It was moving how generous and patient they were, though they’d witnessed something that shook their souls.

Mr. Trump says rough things and rough things are said about him. He does rough things, too, and many of his enemies truly hate him and are accused of trying to thwart him in ways just and unjust.

Can we hope for any improvement? Any amelioration of the bile? Maybe for a short term. The long term? I don’t know. But shocks like an assassination attempt can reorder things in the political culture at least for a while. When something like this happens—when you are shot, and if you’d turned an inch or two this way and not that way, that was the difference between a grazing wound and death—what impact does that have? How do you feel when you see someone you hate assaulted and hurt by a nut with a gun at a public meeting? Does it feel good, or more like a caution, a warning?

We’re all at least united in one hope: that what happened last night will be the worst thing that happens in the 2024 campaign.

Everything is about to change. It won’t stay stuck.

We don’t know exactly how the change will come but it will come, because what we have now can’t continue. Joe Biden can’t sustain a demanding campaign and is incapable of functioning for 4½ more years as the American president. We all know this. Only three people don’t know it. They think they can tough it out. But reality doesn’t care how tough you are, reality will have its way.

When things move, they’ll move fast. What should the Democratic Party do?

Sometimes in life the romantic route is the realistic one. That is true in this case.

The realists wish to accept and anoint. The realist says Mr. Biden is a problem but you can’t remove him, so hunker down and try to survive the down-ballot drag as the old man hands Donald Trump the presidency, and likely Congress, and, uh oh, the next president may get two seats to fill on the Supreme Court so let’s cement Mr. Trump into the judiciary too. But this isn’t “realistic,” it isn’t “sophisticated,” it’s suicidal, and the suicide of dullards, too. The realist route, if Mr. Biden ultimately steps aside, is to limit debate, forestall trouble and anoint Kamala Harris as the new nominee.

The romantic route is to take personal responsibility and push the president to step aside. What follows is the Hail Mary pass: Say a prayer, throw the long ball and see who catches it. Devise a process—mini-primaries, open convention, figure it out—that lets the people of the party decide. Devise a formula whereby delegates can choose from five or six candidates. But open this thing up, anoint no one.

Elected officials, operatives and donors can’t in some grand cabal choose Ms. Harris as the directed heir. The country won’t respect it. Many in the party will resent it. They think she’ll lose. In four years she has, according to consistent polling, left most of the nation unimpressed. The Democratic establishment, such as it is, lost credibility by previously insisting on Mr. Biden when they could see he was impaired, and by blocking primary challenges. They can’t block all challengers again.

The vice president is never just “given” the presidency when he or she runs. They have always had to fight for it.

“It’s Kamala or chaos.” Then take chaos: Have the fight you fear. “We’ll have an intraparty war.” Then have it. “But Jeffrey Katzenberg says—” Whatever he says, do the opposite.

Ms. Harris deserves to be in the pool of candidates. Beyond that she can fight like everyone else.

The romantics are right and are seeing the situation clearly. They aren’t innocent: They understand the chaos that will ensue. But they know what U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq used to say: “Embrace the suck.” Open this up, take a chance. You may electrify America.

Here is a story of a party that was a mess—destroyed, riven and without hope. The Democratic Party of 1948 was a train wreck wrapped in a dumpster fire encased in the Marconi Room of the Titanic. Its left wing split and formed the Progressive Party, whose leader, Henry Wallace, became the presidential candidate. The right wing, the mighty Southern segregationists, stormed out during the party convention and decided to run their own presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond. The New Deal coalition that lasted 16 years had fallen apart.

President Harry S. Truman, 64 and at the peak of his powers, was at the bottom of the polls. Party leaders couldn’t help him make his convention a success because they were too busy trying to draft Dwight Eisenhower to take his place.

The convention opened on July 12 in Philadelphia during an oppressive heat wave. The huge crowds that were expected didn’t come. David McCullough, in his biography “Truman,” noted local cab drivers complained they had the wrong rigs: “They shoulda given us hearses.” Floor fights broke out, the Dixiecrats marched, the convention was “pathetically bogged down in its own gloom.” Speeches were long and windy, the balloting long. Truman arrived at 9:15 p.m. for his acceptance speech. He didn’t go on until almost 2:00 in the morning.

To make matters worse, before he spoke the convention had to watch a former senator’s sister unveil a special treat: a 6-foot-tall “Liberty Bell” she’d constructed, containing 48 pigeons designated as “doves of peace.” They would fly majestically through the air as the band struck up “Hail to the Chief.” But they’d been cooped up in the heat for hours, and when the bell opened some of them dropped out dead. The rest, distraught, flew wildly through the hall, smashing into television lights, rafters and drapes. Historian David Pietrusza writes: “They dive-bombed delegates. Men and women shouted, ‘Watch your clothes!’ ” Some pigeons went for the podium. Convention chairman Sam Rayburn “frantically shushed them away. One nearly landed on his glistening, bald head. Another headed straight for the blades of a thirty-six-inch electric fan, saved from filleting only by Rayburn’s quick action. ‘Get those damned pigeons out of here!’ he screamed over live radio and TV.”

Truman hadn’t prepared a formal speech, and went from bullet points. The crowd loved it. I judge it the worst of his career—snotty, militant, more than a little demagogic.

But up against it he showed plenty of fight. McCullough: “Critics on the left and the right found themselves grudgingly moved by such nerve and audacity in the face of the odds.”

Lovers of political history, the real romantics, know how the story ends. A long journey by rail, the famous whistle-stop tour. “I want to see the people,” said Truman, whose own idea McCullough says it was. He crossed the country, then through the Midwest, then up and down the cities of the East, town after town. And something started to happen. “No president in history had ever gone so far in quest of support from the people,” McCullough wrote.

People started arriving in the morning for an afternoon speech. In Detroit on Labor Day 100,000 people filled Cadillac Square. Labor muscle put them there, reporters said, and they were right. But 90,000 showed up in Des Moines, Iowa. At Gilmore Stadium in Los Angeles Truman was met by Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall and introduced by New Dealer Ronald Reagan. Truman was blunt: communists were “guiding and using” the Progressives.

But he could be humble too. He liked that people wanted to talk about “the welfare of the country.” He said, “You don’t get any double talk from me.”

“Give ’em hell, Harry,” people started to shout. Later he’d famously say he didn’t give ’em hell, he just told the truth and they thought it was hell.

And on Election Day, Nov. 2, 1948, his shocking victory. It wasn’t even close.

It’s old lore. It’s romantic just to remember it.

But Democrats should be Democrats again. When everything in your world is about to change, reach back to your old, best self.

Admit the chaos, own it, open this thing up, go for broke. Tell the press: “You’re gonna see everything but the pigeons.”