The DNC: Change or More of the Same?

With Professor Kevin Kruse

Soon after it ended, I debriefed the DNC with Kevin Kruse, a history professor at Princeton. We discussed the evident joy of the convention, why speakers went light on policy, and heavy on Trump attacks. We also explored the inroads the left has made on the Democratic agenda—with glaring exceptions like Gaza. Overall, I was maybe more skeptical of how much Democrats have changed, but “as much as we’d like a more full-throated embrace on some issues,” Professor Kruse told me, he understands “why Democrats are cautious.”

Kevin is the editor of several books, including Myth America: Historians Take On the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past. He’s also the author of many books, including White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism, and the author of Campaign Trails, another newsletter connecting the past to the present.

A condensed transcript of our conversation, edited for clarity, is below. You can also listen to the audio, which includes further discussion of immigration, the influence of The Squad and the suburbs, parallels between Kamala’s rhetoric and FDR’s, the draconian measures I believe Kevin should take during his upcoming term as director of undergraduate studies at Princeton, and more:

Biden has been working around a very large clock

Ben: I'm very interested in your thoughts on the DNC. On one hand, it’s remarkable—and arguably two and a half centuries overdue—that a woman of color might become president. On the other, I’m a little skeptical of the joyous vibes coming out of the convention. It feels like we heard the same Democratic platform we’ve heard for decades, just with a few updates and a song by Pink (which, don’t get me wrong, I loved).

KK: I mean, the joy is real, but you’re right to be skeptical—it’s never a bad stance in politics. Still, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Democrats quite like this, other than with Obama. The word “joy” came up a lot during the convention speeches, and for once, it didn’t feel forced.

Even down to the roll call, the style was there. But I think the substance was there too. Conventions are more about big vision than policy details—it’s about introducing the candidates, making a broad case, and rallying the troops. And I think we saw throughout the entire convention Democrats taking their gloves off. It was really clear to me in Kamala’s speech, and also in the Obamas’ speeches, that there was a new spirit—less highbrow, more rolling up their sleeves and fighting. 

Ben: Is there a precedent for this kind of going on vibes approach—long on generalities, short on specifics?

KK: Well, conventions have always been about vibes—that’s why they pass the platform there but don’t read it out loud. When Democrats lean too much into detailed policies, voters tune out, and they lose. The Harris campaign seems to understand that. In American politics today, you don’t gain much by having finely-tuned policy positions. The political media doesn’t work that way—put out a detailed plan, and it gets torn down immediately, as we saw with Harris’s stance on price gouging. On the campaign trail, sticking to vibes can be more effective because they’re harder to criticize.

At this DNC, you heard hints of policy on small businesses and student loans, but the focus was on rallying around big ideas. And then giving the charge to the troops to get to work.

Ben: “Don’t complain, get to work” was a key theme of the convention, which I think ties into the protests over Gaza. To me, protestors aren’t sitting around complaining: they’re doing the work. And it also seemed like the Democratic establishment was fearful of letting the Uncommitted Movement speak at the convention. Why? What’s the calculus there?

KK: Well, I’m not a strategist—no one asked me my opinion—

Ben: —except for me!

KK: True.

I meant nobody in charge of this event asked me, and I don’t know why they didn’t let the Uncommitted Movement speak—maybe they thought something unpredictable would happen. But the Uncommitted representative from Georgia had a strong speech lined up. I think it would’ve been a good move for the Dems to let her speak, not just for fairness, but for their own self-interest. Including a Palestinian American speaker alongside the parents of hostages—who also wanted a Palestinian speaker—would’ve balanced the conversation.