Will Harris legislate like her boss did?

Perhaps our most popular piece of legislation was the result of compromise.

Sometimes when we fight, nobody wins.

In a generally unflattering profile of VP Kamala Harris in the Atlantic last October, this was the most damning passage in my view (emphasis added):

Harris’s aides once described her to reporters as potentially a key emissary for the administration in Congress—helping corral votes by way of “quiet Hill diplomacy.”  But she lacked the deep relationships needed to exert real influence. Congressional officials told me that Harris rarely engaged the more persuadable holdouts on either side of the aisle…. Harris shifted the terms of the discussion when I asked how her Senate background had proved useful in the administration’s push for legislation: “I mean, I think the work we have to do is really more in getting folks to speak loudly with their feet through the election cycle”—an unusual image, though the point was clear enough: Electing more Democrats might be more effective than trying to twist more arms.

For now, Senate Democrats are not fighting for time with Harris when she’s on the Hill. “You’d be hard-pressed to find a Democratic office that actually engages with her or her team on a regular basis,” one Democratic senator’s chief of staff told me. Traditionally, this person said, officials from the executive branch who visit the Capitol are cornered by lawmakers hoping to get their priorities before the president. But few people are “scrambling to make alliances” with Harris.

In The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It, Amy Gutman and Dennis Thompson argue that in a representative democracy elected leaders need to be able to shift back and forth between campaign mode and governing mode if they want to govern effectively. One cause of polarization, they argue, is that US election seasons—especially for the presidency—last so long.

Here's their point:

Compromise is difficult, but governing a democracy without compromise is impossible….

The compromising mindset displays what we call principled prudence (adapting one's principles) and mutual respect (suspecting opponents). . . .

The uncompromising mindset that characterizes campaigning cannot and should not be eliminated from democratic politics. But when it comes to dominate governing, it obstructs the search for desirable compromises. The uncompromising mindset is like an invasive species that spreads beyond its natural habitat as it roams from the campaign to the government. (1, 16-17, 22)

President Biden succeeded in getting major legislation through Congress because he understands this need for principled prudence and mutual respect in governing and he proved that even in these polarized times it is possible to work out bipartisan compromises. Harris’s comment, and her “fight” slogan, suggest that she thinks the only way to get worthwhile legislation passed is to win enough seats in Congress so she can avoid negotiating with the opposing party. But the reality of American politics now and in the foreseeable future is evenly divided government, along with a Senate filibuster, that makes legislating impossible without compromise. Even within the Democratic coalition, compromise with conservative party members is sometimes necessary, as Biden discovered when Joe Manchin blocked the Green New Deal.

Hopefully, Harris can pivot from fighting and winning the election to compromising and signing legislation as president.

---