Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
When I read, a few days back, that Kamala Harris is “looking for a way back in” to politics, I found myself pleasantly surprised. I’m hardly a member of the KHive, but let’s face it—the news about what Harris might do next could have been so much worse. When she ended her campaign with a speech at Howard University, she said she would “never give up” an unspecified “fight,” so frankly, I didn’t expect much from her. Maybe she’d do like the Obamas and start her own production company? Launch a chat show on Netflix? (What can I say, Democrats have disappointed me over the years.)
Still, articles about Harris’ next steps as a politician are filled with the same cautiousness that characterized her losing campaign at its worst: She is said to be “carefully feeling her way forward” and “looking forward while still processing.” She’s doing the “right” things like meeting with Ezra Klein about his “abundance” agenda and talking polling with Democratic shaman David Shor. Sure, I get it—it’s hard to say exactly what a Democrat not in office could do right now. But I’d like to humbly suggest another role model for Harris—though he is long dead, and also Canadian.
The role model is Tommy Douglas. Yes, he was a socialist, a label Harris has been running from for as long as she’s been in politics. But Douglas is also remembered as one of his country’s most beloved leaders, despite having a moment of profound political loss he needed to bounce back from. And how he did it specifically can offer Harris the road map she needs right now.
TC, as he’s called, got into politics as a social activist and Baptist preacher whose defining issue was health care. His connection was personal: Growing up in poverty in Saskatchewan, Douglas nearly lost a leg as a child, but a first-class surgeon offered him free treatment as long as medical students could observe his progress. The adult Douglas wanted every child to have access to that kind of care, and he fought for it his entire career.
His political setback came in 1945. At the time, the federal government of Canada was considering a set of proposals to expand the country’s welfare state after a decade of economic depression and five years of war. Douglas, then the premier of the deeply impoverished province of Saskatchewan, was advocating for the national government to fund a health care system that provinces would then administer. He felt the meeting could be a “turning point in Canadian history” and said failure to make a plan would have “disastrous results” for Canadians. But new services meant higher taxes, and ultimately the welfare proposals “went down in flames,” as one biographer told me. (It didn’t help that negotiations were overshadowed by the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima.)
TC called the loss a “tragedy.” His home province was poor; he couldn’t deliver on welfare programs on his own. But rather than accept defeat, he went with Plan B: He convinced his constituents to support a limited health plan, just hospital care at first. To make sure it went smoothly, Douglas appointed himself minister of public health, so he could rapidly roll out reforms. When the province needed more revenue to support its welfare program, he made himself minister of “cooperation and cooperative development” to sort out the finances. It took decades to build his system and expand it to everyday doctor visits, but eventually his plan became the model for Canada’s entire Medicare program. Looking at what Saskatchewan built, every province wanted in.
If you think that Canada is somehow “different” from the U.S. when it comes to health care, realize that you probably only think that specifically because of TC’s hard work. Universal health care was not naturally popular while Douglas was building it—before establishing his Medicare prototype, doctors staged a 23-day strike to try to derail it all. The leader of Saskatchewan’s Liberal Party tried to kick down a door in the legislature and warned that Douglas’ plan was making the province into something akin to Russia or Cuba.
If you remember Kamala Harris’ notorious flip-flopping on Medicare for All, you might be wondering why I’m bothering to suggest the Tommy Douglas approach to her. My reasoning is simple: I’d argue that now is the time for Harris to pick her-ride-or-die issue and go to the mat for it. Douglas offers another lesson for Harris, too: When you are shut out nationally, act locally—especially if you’re in a state where you have the privilege to do so. Prove to the rest of the country that you have the ideas that will move us all forward. Do it small. Then do it big.
I’ve even got the perfect topic for her to consider. Since she’s openly considering running for governor of California, might I suggest housing? Housing in California is much more expensive than it is elsewhere in the country, which leads to a rising population of unhoused folks, and grim Fox News fodder about urban crime and drug use. Being bold about housing could be a kind of skeleton key for an elected looking to rehab their brand.
An issue like housing has an added bonus of being a lens for talking about all kinds of nationally relevant topics. Worried about oligarchy? Talk about how Elon Musk wants to put people on Mars rather than building homes for them here on Earth. Thinking about American jobs? You want to provide a whole lot of jobs in construction!
There would be challenges. It gets harder for a politician like Harris when you consider that implementing a big reform means forcing concessions from people you see as allies—big donors, NIMBYs, even environmental activists. But the people-pleasing instincts of the Democratic Party that were so perfectly refracted by Kamala Harris the candidate have not been working for anyone.
And there are risks. Harris might seem inauthentic by focusing on a single issue in a way she hasn’t done before. With housing, she has spoken about her mom saving for years to buy her own home, but she isn’t in the guts of permitting reform. Her approach in the past has offered lifelines to distinct groups of people (e.g., down payment support for first-time home buyers) rather than emphasizing housing as a human right for all.
But I think the possible benefits still outweigh these challenges and risks. Tommy Douglas pushed his ideas about health care by focusing on the righteousness of his cause—having been a preacher helped. With the GOP modeling trollishness as a political brand, righteous indignation is right there for the taking, if only the Democrats will get on with it.
I’m not asking Harris to become something she’s not, not really. I am asking her—and her party more globally—to think bigger. Find some things they believe in. And stick with them. Kamala Harris is the perfect person to try. Because, honestly, she’s tried everything else. She’s got nothing to lose.
Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.
