A PhD political scientist fails to understand basic political realities ( NYT article analysis)

https://archive.ph/2021.06.29-10572...harris-joe-biden.html#selection-649.0-649.224

This whole article was supposed to be about Kamala Harris being hung out to dry on immigration by Joe "the institutional encyclopedia" Biden, but I explain where it goes off the rails and turns into a Book of Excuses as a prelude to electoral defeat in 2024.

To begin, one should not be puzzled that the Vice-President now finds herself in the familiar executive predicament of being expected to accomplish more than she is capable of accomplishing. It would also be incorrect to attribute this political impossibility to any combinations of circumstances which exclude that, like consumer items, promises made to the citizenry in pursuit of political victory have an expiration date ending in an even-numbered year. Absent a genuine aim of fulfilling them in accordance with the interests of one's constituents, promises made are useful only before votes are cast in one's favor, and still more useful should the majority of votes be cast in the favor of one's opposition. All future reputational injury that may accompany dereliction of political duty is rendered innocuous when preceded by a convenient democratic political defeat, which at this moment would seem to have served Democrats in more ways than did their victory at the executive level.

Nonetheless, PhD-having political scientist Christina Greer goes to great lengths to conceal this basic political reality and then the New York Times decided to publish her nonsense. Here are the most ridiculous portions of the article.

Frames Harris as being a traditional political figure but for her being a non-white woman.

Lashes out at unqualified men and presents them as the chief impediment to Harris' 2024 competition.

Inserts the "honest national conversation about race and gender" line that is always a pretext for ideological browbeating.

Cue the ideological browbeating... Claims that support for civil liberty is favored more in theory than in practice only with regard to white liberals, then implies that the main reason for their being disproportionally scrutinized is that Hillary Clinton, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are all women, as if to say that it is the failure of white society in practicing liberalism, thus preventing their ascent with regard to political office. Therefore, we can expect the same for Kamala Harris.

Plainly states that it is evident of racism and sexism that there have been no black women elected to gubernatorial office.

The referenced 60-sec. commercial has two young boys each refusing to try a new nutritional breakfast cereal, both finally concurring to give it to their younger sibling, Mikey, to see his reaction before they attempt to eat it themselves. The message here is that Biden is passing off his difficult tasks to Harris and refusing to tackle daunting issues at risk to his own electoral viability in 2024.

I wonder if this sort of sentiment will become a mainstay of left-leaning news media because it only digs a deeper hole. If more non-white non-men get elected to public office, and we finally have an "honest national conversation" about race and gender, and Biden takes a more primary role in reforming immigration law, and still the desired effect is not achieved, have they not simply dug a deeper hole from which they must climb? Same short-sighted strategy that is responsible for their having to publish this nonsense to begin.