Editors’ Blog

This story of the “incident” at Arlington National Cemetery has blown up pretty dramatically. In case you haven’t heard about it yet or aren’t up to date on the details, let me try to explain what we know.

Three days ago, the Trump campaign held a campaign event at Arlington National Cemetery. The idea was to lay a wreath honoring the 13 members of the U.S. military who were killed during the evacuation of Kabul in 2021 and film a political ad. They would distribute the video and attack Vice President Harris and President Biden for not “showing up” for their campaign event, which they sought to portray was an established memorial. As soon as the video circulated, military policy experts I know said right off the bat they were shocked that the campaign had been allowed to hold a campaign event on the grounds of the cemetery and circulate video of it. It isn’t just unseemly. It’s against the law. How were they allowed to do that?

That turned out to be a good and prescient question.

Something happened during the Democrats’ excitement-packed Chicago convention that has drawn relatively little notice. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was considering changing or open to changing or may change the filibuster rules next year to pass a federal Roe law, enshrining national abortion rights. Schumer said that he would pass two voting rights laws under a filibuster exception. On abortion he said, “I have to discuss that with my caucus. This is one of the issues we would have to debate and discuss and evolve.”

Given that there’s been a lot of encouraging news about the Harris campaign, there’s an understandable and salutary resistance to any commentary that looks like counting chickens before they are hatched. We have more than two months to go before Election Day. A lot can happen. But there’s something going on with Donald Trump.

In the first week or two after Harris’ campaign launched, it was perhaps understandable that his campaign had a hard time knowing how to respond. Not entirely understandable, of course. His campaign hoodwinked the Times into running a whole story about how it was locked and loaded with ads, oppo and messaging, ready to annihilate Harris and her campaign on the launch pad the moment Biden stepped aside. But when it happened the very next day, they were caught flatfooted. That was odd since the possibility of Biden stepping aside had been very real for six weeks. Still, it’s hard to prepare for something of such magnitude.

This morning on Twitter, Tim Murtaugh, a former Trump campaign spokesman, concluded a tweet attacking Harris by writing: “Her whole vacant message sounds like it’s from a party that’s out of power. But they’re her messes.” Through the spittle and frustration you can see him making a point which quite understandably has Trump’s campaign angry and bewildered. Harris has made Trump into the incumbent with her as the challenger running on a campaign message to turn the page. Whether this is fair or true or any number of other descriptors you might come up with, there’s little doubt that it is an accurate description of the campaign we are in the midst of. The Trump campaign itself is telling us this, almost in spite of itself. And it’s worth taking a moment to consider how exactly this manages to be the case. Since Harris is not only a member of the incumbent party. She’s literally the incumbent Vice President.

I can’t explain it entirely myself because I haven’t been able to completely understand it. But I can point to several key parts of the puzzle.

We’ve spoken a few times about the ongoing discussion of when Kamala Harris’s “honeymoon” is going to come to an end. We had a lot of press conversation about how it had to end a week after she got into the race. There’s been a growing media hunger for it to end. I was prompted to write this post because of a piece I saw in New York Magazine headlined, “How Long can ‘Brat Summer’ Last? The vibes are good, but at some point, Kamala Harris has to leave her bubble.”

I need to be really clear about what I mean here. On the podcast, Kate and I keep saying that there are going to be reverses in this campaign, to be prepped for them, not to lose heart at the first ugly attack that lands or the first bad poll. I’ve said similar things in various posts. So when I talk about “honeymoonism,” I don’t mean to suggest that I think we’re in a straight-line progression from now until Election Day. Just as we should never lose heart in the bleakest moments, we should always be mindful to invest positive energy in future resilience. But through these discussions of Harris’ “honeymoon” and when it has to end or when she has to come out of the “honeymoon” bubble, we can see an assumption or claim that is a bit different. It’s that somehow what’s happened during the first month of Harris’ campaign isn’t quite real, that it’s a sugar high, if you will, a burst of excitement that can’t last.