With Biden’s Exit, Will Harris Carry Forward His Populist Legacy?
In 2020, Joe Biden’s candidacy was grounded in his reputation as the Democrat who could beat Donald Trump, championed as “Scranton Joe” and “Amtrak Joe” by moderate African-American voters and party centrists. Following his nomination and eventual victory, Biden’s administration took an unexpected turn, embracing an agenda deeply rooted in economic populism—a surprise to many in his own party. His policies on industrial reshoring, tariffs, rural redevelopment, and anti-monopoly actions resonated with the economic frustrations that had fueled populist sentiment since 2016.
The Biden administration’s economic stance was, in many ways, a response to the discontent that propelled Trump’s rise. Rather than merely returning to traditional Democratic policies, Biden’s approach leaned toward economic nationalism, pushing policies that aimed to protect American industries and workers. This strategy included tariffs on Chinese imports and initiatives to revitalize U.S. manufacturing—a bold move that, while appealing to certain voter bases, proved polarizing within the Democratic Party itself. As Biden’s administration continued, debates intensified over the potential long-term impact of such measures on both domestic and global economies.
Now, with Biden stepping aside and endorsing Kamala Harris, the future of this populist approach remains uncertain. Harris, known more for her progressive stances on social issues, has yet to signal whether she will retain Biden’s economic policies or adopt a more globalist perspective. This potential shift could alter the Democratic Party’s current stance on issues like trade protectionism, industrial policy, and regulatory reform—policies that many within Biden’s camp saw as essential to maintaining working-class support. Yet, in an increasingly divided political landscape, Harris faces pressure to appeal broadly across the spectrum.
Many Democratic strategists are now grappling with whether Bidenism will endure beyond Biden himself. His mix of populism and economic nationalism challenged the party’s traditional alliances with corporate interests, raising questions about the sustainability of such a direction. While some Democrats hope to keep this momentum, fearing that abandoning it could alienate voters, others argue that Harris should pursue a more modernized, globally aligned economic platform to distinguish her presidency.
Biden’s populist stance also sought to address domestic inequalities and boost U.S. competitiveness, but his limited appeal among independents and moderate Republicans highlighted the obstacles facing this approach. The Biden administration’s ability to strike a balance between protectionism and progressive economic reforms will be an enduring lesson for Harris, as she seeks to form an agenda that both resonates with and expands upon Biden’s populist roots.
With the 2024 election looming, Harris must weigh the legacy of Bidenism against the political realities of the present. Whether Biden’s populist economic model will survive within the Democratic platform remains to be seen, but it’s clear that Harris’s next steps could redefine the party’s trajectory and reshape American economic policy in the coming years.
