In the unexpected, unanticipated, whirlwind Harris campaign, joy has gotten the Democratic Party and its voters pretty far. From the jolt of Biden’s torch-passing announcement in July to her selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to the moment she accepted the nomination on the Chicago stage, Kamala Harris has ridden a wave of enthusiasm that quickly closed the gap with a Trump campaign that had been in full swing for almost four years. It has brought her to the precipice of a historic and essential victory for both herself and the country she aspires to lead. But to close the deal, she will need something more than the promise of happiness or a clean slate; she will need a closing argument.
In these final days, the former prosecutor will have to make the most important closing statement of her career. Her argument must rebut her opponent, affirm her achievements, and lay out where she will lead us next — all while staying accessible and comprehensible to voters. And though it seems like a nearly impossible task, there is a concept she could draw from that does everything she could ask for. It fits with the campaign she has run, challenges the dark promises of her opposition, and provides a vision of how we can move past the Trump Era: radical inclusion.
Radical inclusion is the idea that everyone is welcome — no matter their party, their background, their race, their gender, or where they’re from. It is a call not merely to tolerate, but to embrace — across conflict, differences, disagreement — for the commonality that binds us together. Radical inclusion insists that there are values we all share, principles we all believe in, and rights we should all enjoy, and then demands that our politics and political leaders should reflect the sharing that defines us. It is an affirmation of democracy — not that we will always agree on everything, but that we can safely agree to disagree on anything — because we know that we’re all together on what matters (human rights and inherent dignity).
In many ways, this is an expansion of what Harris has already been doing, as the campaign has tried reaching out to disaffected Republicans and skeptical independents to join in the joy. The campaign has run events with Liz Cheney, touted endorsements of Harris from former Republican officials, and put a spotlight on the many members of Trump’s first administration who think he should be denied a second one. Beyond that, the Harris team has deployed Gov. Tim Walz as a former red-district Democrat and moderate Midwesterner to allay conservative worries that a government capable of compassion will cross the line into control. Radical inclusion just pushes this concept beyond party politics and into shared humanity.
It’s a desperate and necessary expansion, given the rhetoric from the Republican side. Coast to coast, in battleground states and difficult races, GOP campaigns for Congress and Senate have been focusing on who will be excluded, marginalized, neglected, and attacked more than what the government can do to make life better for everyone. Without any actual accomplishments to run on, Republicans have decided to press the terror button hard, appealing to the worst in voters to get their fears to push GOP candidates over the top.
And Trump — echoing the genocidal, hateful dictator he most admires — promises much more than that: arresting political opponents and dissenters, stripping bodily autonomy from more than half the nation, going door-to-door, block by block, to round up undesirable people and concentrate us into tent camps with no trial or due process. At a time when trust in the Supreme Court has hit historic lows, Trump is demanding punishment for people who criticize his favored justices — like the First Amendment is little more than a suggestion when it makes him feel bad. Should he get into office, disagreement will mean at best a disappearance and at worst a death sentence.
Because the GOP closing argument is about who and how the nation will hate, a contrast must be made by forcefully arguing how the future Harris Administration will embrace. It is not enough to say that she will be a president to all Americans; Harris must express the importance of encompassing everyone. That means the marginalized trans people and immigrants attacked by her opponent, the people who have felt like the government could never, would never represent them, and the people who vehemently reject almost every policy she will pursue, but acknowledge the fundamental democratic principle that majorities rule and elections matter.
Radical inclusion doesn’t back down from defending trans rights, supporting diversity initiatives, or hearing out the opposition. It is an affirmation of our differences in the best way, by reminding us that a functional country doesn’t start from domination and control over each other, but from the recognition of our shared humanity. And if people are unwilling to accept that basic value, then the only answer is complete and unrelenting electoral defeat and the consequences of our actions.
Most importantly, as radical inclusion shows us what everyone can gain from an inclusive, diverse, unabashedly accepting Harris Administration, it also demonstrates exactly what we have to lose.
