Author: jarviser2

24 years ago, 2 weeks after the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, a swarm of mostly middle-aged white Republican men staged a protest at a meeting of election workers in Miami-Dade County, Florida. They were led by Republican staffers. Their intention was to shut down the ongoing recount of ballots. They were successful; the recount was stopped early and, eventually, the Supreme Court would decide in Bush’s favor. The protest would later become known as the Brooks Brothers Riot, referencing the business clothing that most protesters were dressed in. 

I chose to write about this event because as a 21 years old self-proclaimed political-junkie, I had not heard about the Brooks Brothers Riot until this class. In the aftermath of the January 6th insurrection, the Brooks Brothers riot can almost be seen as foreshadowing the more violent protests that would come two-decades later.

In researching the Brooks Brothers riot, I found a ominous piece in the Guardian forewarning about the dangers that could follow the 2020 election. This article discusses how preemptive warnings about the election “being stolen” or “voter fraud” from Donald Trump in 2020 was creating a “vigilante far-right” army. This phenomenon feels just as, if not more, present in 2024. Political violence is also seemingly on the rise, with two assassination attempts on Donald Trump since July.

In comparing the Brooks Brothers riot and the January 6th insurrection, there is an apparent difference on the level of government targeted. While the January 6th insurrection targeted then Vice President Mike Pence and Congress, the Brooks Brothers rioters targeted a local election authority. Such localized riots present a distinct type of threat to democracy. 

While the defense against the January 6th rioters was insufficient (resulting in the death of multiple police officers in the immediate aftermath of the attack) local election entities are likely even more defenseless. As the election narrative intensifies and focuses on a handful of swing states, local authorities should take caution and secure election processes wherever possible.

As the Harris campaign unfolded after Biden’s withdrawal from the election, there was an undeniable excitement brewing in the Democratic party. Looking back, the tik tok edits, Charli XCX endorsements, and Lil Jon DNC performances brought a distinctly youthful energy to the earliest days of Harris’ campaign. For Gen Z voters like myself, the excitement behind the Harris campaign was a far cry from the 2016 and 2020 elections we remember most vividly. For older voters, the comparisons came quickly: it felt like 2008. 

The comparisons that have been made between 2024 Kamala Harris and 2008 Barack Obama are not necessarily about tangible policy issues. Instead, the comparisons focus on the sense of energy and excitement that their campaigns seemed to capture. Stefanie Brown James, Obama’s 2012 national African American vote director told U.S. News, “They are very similar in the way they do politics. It is very relational with an air of joy.”

Leaning into a political predecessor to inspire voters isn’t a novel idea. Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan was previously used in 1980 by the successful Reagan-Bush campaign (United States Studies Centre). Reusing slogans or other campaign tactics that have previously proven successful is intuitive and resourceful. 

Source: United States Studies Centre

A similar strategy was used in 1876 by Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler. Instead of generating an entirely new campaign song, the Hayes campaign recycled the melody from William Henry Harrison and John Tyler’s popular “Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too.” The new version – “Haye’s the True and Wheeler, Too” – appealed to older voters, successfully building a sense of nostalgia. For younger voters, the catchy melody created a similar sense of excitement as the original lyrics had in 1840 (Library of Congress).

Source: Library of Congress

As Kamala seeks to energize her base in the final month of her campaign, she doesn’t need to completely reinvent the wheel. Historical evidence shows that slogans, songs, and ideas that successfully energized Obama’s base in 2008 will hold up 16 years later.

Source:

Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris Campaigns compare, Phillip M. Bailey, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, 8/20/2024, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/20/obama-kamala-harris-campaigns-compared/74772276007/

Voices, Votes, Victory: Presidential Campaign Songs, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/presidential-songs/issues-and-slogans.html#obj7

Reagan: ‘Making America great’ the first time, https://www.ussc.edu.au/reagan-making-america-great-the-first-time

“We’re not going back! We’re not going back!” Those four words have, somewhat accidentally, become the slogan of Kamala Harris’ campaign. The chant emerged in the Harris Campaign’s first official event following Biden’s decision to drop out of the race. Harris has centralized this theme of progress within her campaign messaging. It sets up a natural contrast between Harris, a first-time nominee for president and Trump, the former president who is running as the Republican candidate in his third straight election. 

Centering a campaign around the broad idea of progress is not particularly novel. However, Harris’ ability to juxtapose her candidacy with the very recent Trump administration is powerful, and it draws comparisons to the election of 1800.

The election of 1800 positioned Federalists against Democratic-Republicans. Like Harris and Trump, these parties presented very different visions for the future of the country. According to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello, a key difference between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans was their opinions surrounding the British style of government. Federalists wanted to improve upon the British form of government while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans wanted clearer, more dramatic change. 

As the election of 1800 heated up, personal attacks against candidates were frequent. One critic, writing under a pseudonym, said that electing Jefferson meant “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest, will be openly taught and practiced.” (Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello). It would take endorsements from former enemies and a tumultuous final election in the House of Representatives, but Jefferson would ultimately win the election. 

As Harris navigates the final two months of her campaign, it might be helpful to remember Jefferson’s. The stakes and circumstances were different, but the tone was similar. Jefferson argued for a fresh president to take office in order to further the process of establishing American democracy. And despite Jefferson’s opponent’s claims, the country did not implode at his winning the election. In fact, the transition of power was relatively peaceful. If there is a lesson for Harris to take away from 1800, perhaps it is to quiet the noise and frenzy that surrounds you as a candidate and focus on the progress that your campaign is promising. It seemed to work for Jefferson.

Sources:

“We Are Not Going Back” Wasn’t Written to Be a Campaign Catchphrase. Kamala Harris Voters Had Other Ideas, Chris Smith, September 6, 2024

“A Nation Divided: The Election of 1800” Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello