As a kid, in the 1970s, I played Vince Lombardi’s Game. It was a board game, where you’d choose a strategy for each play (such as “Prevent Defense” or “The Blitz”), then roll dice and use numerical tables to see what happened on the cardboard gridiron. Lombardi was dead, which I don’t recall knowing. My interest in football peaked late that decade when I bet regularly against my friend Billy that the Steelers would lose, regardless of the point spread, and lost a dollar almost every week.
My interest in Lombardi, dormant for decades, was piqued by the closing assertion of Mark Ellis’ article “Legacy Media Targets Low-Information Voters,” that low-information Kamala Harris supporters might believe, among other things, that “Minnesota Governor Tim ‘Tampon’ Walz is the political reincarnation of Vince Lombardi.” I looked at various Lombardi items on the internet, finding he was a Democrat of complex politics and outlook, who never said “winning is the only thing.” I was a little surprised by the “Tampon” moniker as I thought that had backfired on Republicans, and was spurious, but it may continue to resonate in some circles.
A critique of “Vince Lombardi Democrats” by political scientist Ruy Teixeira, draws on the misquote and stereotype of Lombardi to argue that the Harris-Walz campaign’s big-tent approach is “more a purpose-built, curated centrism than a full-bore move to the center,” and may not succeed in beating the Trump-Vance ticket or, even if it does, holding a coalition together. In a Washington Post opinion piece, Teixeira crunches polling numbers to argue that Harris, despite improving on Joe Biden’s prospects of winning, has had difficulty matching his 2020 support, let alone Barack Obama’s onetime coalition.
Both parties are viewed unfavorably. In recent polling of registered voters, the Republican Party gets ratings of 56.1 percent unfavorable, 41 percent favorable, and 2.9 percent undecided. The Democratic Party has numbers that are only somewhat better: 53.2 percent unfavorable, 44.5 percent favorable, and 2.3 percent undecided. The election may hinge on which party is more disliked; on the intensity with which voters who dislike a party are motivated to prevent its victory.
Spurred by a comment exchange with Chris Beck at my article “Visions of Freedom,” I again took to the internet. One item was about truancy laws in California. When Harris was San Francisco district attorney, in the 2000s, she talked of prosecuting parents whose children were truant. An existing state child-neglect law enabled this but hadn’t been used that way in San Francisco. She recalled later that her staff went “bananas” at this prospect, concerned there’d be political backlash. In practice, no one was jailed; it was a pressure tactic to get families to use services. However, a new state law that Harris pushed for as candidate for attorney general, setting standards for prosecutorial involvement, was then used by other D.A.s to prosecute parents of truant children, which Harris says she regrets.
I oppose the policy Harris propounded. Still, considering its details, and the context of threats of authoritarianism in America and how to weigh them in casting a vote in the 2024 presidential election, I see Kamala’s record on truancy law as of limited importance. As I noted in a recent article, deciding what topics to emphasize is crucial: “Humans’ narrow bandwidth—the volume of information we can transmit and receive—means our communication must consider interlocutors and context in ways an AI doesn’t.”
Teixeira used the term “Vince Lombardi Democrats” to criticize members of my party whose desire to stop a Donald Trump victory is all-consuming. It’s true that combating a prospect one sees as extremely negative can impel overlooking flaws in one’s preferred alternative. Giving due consideration to possible downsides of one’s own political side, as well as the other side, is a challenge of our polarized times.
—Follow Kenneth Silber on X: @kennethsilber
