Kamala Harris’ Base Will Stand by Her If She Leads Efforts to Restrain Executive Power, Our Survey Shows
She has a real opportunity to strengthen democratic norms if elected
Kamala Harris has the smallest populist following of the major presidential candidates this election season, as we reported earlier this month based on a survey of populist attitudes in America fielded by our parent organization, the Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism. Under the survey’s model of populism, 15% of Harris’ supporters could be classified as “populists,” compared to 36% of Republican Donald Trump’s, and 29% of then-Independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s.
But this does not mean that if Harris wins, our governing institutions will be secure from populist pressures. True, far fewer of her supporters than Trump’s exhibit two of the populist attitudes the survey measures: feeling an unusually strong bond with their candidate and her cause, and identifying people in American society that, unlike them, can’t be “real” members of the American community. They do, however, display the other two attitudes at levels similar to Trump’s supporters: a strong skepticism of society’s elites, and a willingness to let their candidate override checks on presidential power to achieve political goals.
If elected, Harris could thus face pressure to misuse her power. That said, our survey shows that if she chooses to take the lead in fireproofing the presidency from future abuses by rogue executives, as The UnPopulist has recommended, she would have backing from her supporters—including her populist supporters—to do so. In effect, Harris faces a historic opportunity to strengthen American institutions for years to come.
The ‘UnPopulism’ of Harris Supporters
The ISMA survey tested for the four populist attitudes summarized above and classified people displaying three or more of these as “populists.” The sizable gap between the number of Harris and Trump populists emerged mostly from large differences between Harris and Trump supporters on two of those four attitudes.
The first of the two attitudes producing this gap involved people’s sense of attachment to their political candidate. Just 6% of Harris supporters showed the potential populist attitude of feeling an unusually close attachment to Harris, or to both her and her policy agenda. In contrast, 22% of Trump supporters did so with Trump.
Harris supporters were also less likely to display the frequent populist attitude of identifying “social outgroups”—in other words, people in American society they viewed negatively, as specially advantaged, and as ultimately unable to be “true members of the national community.” A 54% majority of Trump supporters held this attitude toward at least one of the 12 groups we tested, particularly undocumented immigrants, transgender people, Muslims, and gays and lesbians. Just 22% of Harris supporters did the same, with their primary outgroup being evangelical Christians—a demographic frequently associated with Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and conservative ideology (see table below).
Harris Supporters’ Strong Skepticism of American Elites
Harris supporters’ lower rate of populist sentiments in these areas doesn’t mean, however, that they can’t succumb to traditional populist temptations. In the other two areas we tested, Harris supporters showed signs of populist attitudes nearly at par with Trump supporters.
One of these attitudes was whether people saw themselves as harmed or ignored by corrupt, powerful elites. We tested people’s attitudes toward six elites in all (see table below), asking if the respondent thought these elites “have often harmed the interests of Americans like me in pursuit of their own selfish interests.” Despite this strong, even cynical language, a majority of Harris supporters agreed or strongly agreed in four of the six cases, while a plurality agreed in the other two.
In all, 59% of Harris supporters strongly agreed with this harsh statement about at least one elite. This qualified them, under our model, as exhibiting signs of this populist attitude at a rate nearly equal to the 61% of Trump supporters who did the same. And while Trump supporters reserved their strongest criticism for the cultural elites, Harris supporters were most severe on business elites in finance and industry, religious elites in Christian churches—perhaps echoing their greater willingness to view evangelical Christians as a social outgroup—and political elites among the nation’s elected officials. This last elite is particularly relevant to the risks posed by Harris supporters’ feelings on the fourth populist attitude.
The Partisan Allure of Expanding Executive Power
The other populist attitude where Harris supporters ranked high was their apparent willingness to let their candidate, if elected president, override checks on presidential power. We asked two sets of questions to test this inclination. One pair of questions gauged how much more willing people might be to let their preferred candidate, as opposed to a generic president of their own party, use executive orders to circumvent their political opponents in Congress. Another set asked whether they trusted their preferred candidate “as president to decide when to follow the law and when to ignore it to achieve justice” when the opposing party had allegedly misused federal power for partisan purposes. Among Harris supporters, 64% endorsed one or both these ideas, compared to 63% among Trump supporters.
This high percentage of Harris supporters probably reflects the strong skepticism they expressed, as discussed above, toward the political elites among America’s national elected officials—a group that presumably includes the Republican national officials who might thwart Harris’ goals. Harris supporters’ high figures were likely also due to the allegation in one question, also mentioned above, of a partisan abuse of power by the respondent’s political opponents.
But there was no suggestion of underhanded tactics in our question about a generic president of the respondent’s own party using an executive order to bypass opposition in Congress. Even then, 48% of Harris supporters agreed or strongly agreed with the idea, compared to only 36% of Trump supporters.
This Harris percentage would likely decline and the Trump percentage rise if Trump won the White House in November. This is the lesson of an extensive study published earlier this year by the Democracy Fund and titled Democracy Hypocrisy: Examining America’s Fragile Democratic Convictions. The study found that people often switch their views on liberal democratic norms over time depending on whether it helps or hurts their political party. Neither side was immune from this. As I noted in an essay for The UnPopulist, the study found that while Republicans zigzagged on respecting election outcomes when it affected their own candidates, “The Achilles’ heel for Democrats appears to have been their endorsing unilateral presidential action even when it [was] not constitutionally authorized without congressional approval” whenever a Democrat happened to be president.
Harris Populists and Executive Power
This dynamic appears to be even stronger among Harris populists. In the question mentioned above about a generic president of the respondent’s own party issuing an executive order to circumvent Congress, fully 59% agreed or strongly agreed with the idea. This figure rose to 72% when Harris herself was named as the president in the question, a rate of agreement that raises what would be a bare majority of approval for the idea among Harris’ nonpopulist supporters to a 55% majority among all Harris supporters. In effect, Harris populists—nearly one in every six Harris supporters—provide her with a more secure political base for using executive orders to bypass Congress unconstitutionally.
Consider, too, that 81% of Harris supporters said they had negative feelings toward Republicans, a number that rises to 90% for Harris populists. No doubt part of this is anti-Trump sentiment: Eighty-four percent (84%) of Harris populists said they felt “very fearful” of Trump’s election; 88%, that he “would definitely pose a threat to American democracy”; and 97%, that this presidential election “will decide whether America will continue to be a democracy.” But such feelings will probably continue to affect Harris supporters’ views of Republicans if Harris wins the election and, as seems quite plausible, Trump partisans aggressively protest the result.
If Harris is elected in this environment and required to govern with a recalcitrant Republican Congress, she could easily face pressure—particularly from her populist supporters—to bypass Congress and “legislate” by executive order. Indeed, 56% of Harris populists agreed that members of their party “harm themselves if they comply with the law when their political opponents do not,” and it’s clear that many Harris populists—and other Harris supporters—believe Republicans have not. The pressure on Harris would also intensify if partisans tapped her supporters’ negative feelings toward national political elites—a group that would include Congress—or if the proposed legislation involved efforts to curb the perceived power of the business or religious elites Harris supporters are skeptical of.
Yet this does not mean Harris couldn’t stand her ground against inappropriate executive orders and, further, argue to rein in or reduce executive power. Over the past few years, Democrats have campaigned on the importance of maintaining constitutional norms, and aside from the issue of executive orders, these appeals appear to have been accepted by Harris supporters. For example, our survey asked about four other constitutional norms, such as the government’s not censoring partisan media outlets (see table below). Majorities of Harris supporters—populists and nonpopulists alike—endorsed them. Solid majorities of Harris populists and nonpopulists likewise rejected as a “somewhat or very bad way of governing this country” a system in “which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from Congress or the courts.”
In fact, it’s telling that when Harris populists in our survey were asked about which of eight different traits they saw as “very important” in a presidential candidate, they put at the bottom of the list the qualities “assertive with political power,” “politically outmaneuvers his or her opponents,” and “quick to seize political opportunities”—in other words, the traits displayed in unilaterally issuing executive orders to bypass Congress. At the top of the list was a candidate who “sticks to constitutional principles,” seen as very important by 80% of Harris populists and by 70% of Harris supporters as a whole. Harris populists and other Harris supporters appear, then, to have embraced in broad terms—even if not with perfect consistency—constitutional ideals on executive power.
Trump supporters are not markedly different on these issues. They are generally less staunch in support of the norms, but they, too, are more likely to oppose than to support violating them—except, again, on the issue of using executive orders to bypass Congress, where a plurality approve the idea. They are, however, rather less likely than Harris supporters to see it as very important that their president have such traits as “tolerates views different from his or her own” (44%, versus 62% for Harris supporters), “willing to compromise when necessary” (40% vs. 61%) and “seeks bipartisan coalitions” (31% vs. 48%). If Trump were elected president, it is less clear Republican party members would value his working with Democrats in Congress to curb the powers of the presidency, and that he would make such work a priority.
If, in contrast, a newly elected President Harris consistently delivered a message of respecting constitutional limits on presidential power and refrained from issuing inappropriate executive orders of her own, she might well change her supporters’ views on this issue. Indeed, persuading her voters should be easier after the election. A Harris victory is likely to be a narrow one, demonstrating to her supporters the very real possibility that Donald Trump—a candidate a vast majority of them said they were very fearful of—might have held presidential power again. The need to curb that power for the good of the country, even if it means constraining her own power and persevering with Congress to achieve her goals, is an argument she should be able to win with her base.
Pursuing a Historic Legacy of Executive Initiative—and Restraint
So while our survey indicates that Kamala Harris, if elected, may well be able to rally her followers to support her in exceeding some of the proper limits on presidential authority, it also shows that she has a real political opportunity to instead make a principled argument for working with Congress to proactively reform and constrain a president’s power. This broad ideal is largely accepted by her followers, including—at least for now—her populist followers.
Such reforms could do much to limit the potential damage populism presents to American democracy, and they would represent a historic legacy. Above all, they could raise the chances that 2028 becomes a year in which Americans no longer believe their presidential election represents a threat to American democracy, because they no longer fear that a president’s power might prove unlimited.
© The UnPopulist, 2024
I'll go back and read the referenced piece about the previous poll, but how is "a strong skepticism of society’s elites" something to be concerned about? It sounds like one of the founding principles of our country, along with a strong skepticism of the masses - hence our Republican form of government that seeks to restrain both elite and mass enthusiasms that threaten to trample on individual rights.
I expect to see Harris issue the average number of executive orders depending on the composition of the House and Senate.
If, as I expect, she will have a Republican House and Senate there is every reason to believe the only way in which she will have any authority will be through executive orders and the veto. If Republicans waste less time on meaningless performative investigations and more time reasserting Congress as a coequal branch of government they could significantly cut back on executive power.
Further now is the time to challenge the legality of "signing statements" on bills sent to the President. It is an attempt to usurp the power of Congress to legislate and the Courts to interpret the meaning and Constitutionality of laws.
While the SCOTUS has radically expanded the concept of executive immunity for Trump I am certain that given the opportunity they will also be eager to restrain executive power where it infringes upon legislative prerogatives. Depending, of course, on the party of the incumbent and the partisan composition of Congress.
If Harris has a Democratic majority in both houses (depending of the fate of the filibuster) the perceived need for executive action will be less. If Congressional majorities are divided then the perceived need increases.
I say perceived need because these are essentially political actions meant to signal messages to the political base of the executive and not in response to an emergency or as a temporary action until Congress can act.