"The truths we have" of Kamala Harris shows what is wrong with the campaign books: NPR

If a big book is a sumptuous meal, the campaign book is a bottle of Soylent.

A Nabokov novel, a Shakespeare play, or even a crime novel in airports – meets the basic urge to read a story. with beginning, middle and end; watch the characters interact and understand their complex motivations. These stories are there for the happiness of consumption.

The campaign book is not that. The campaign book is a delivery tool. He's here to give you something: the case of candidate X. If you laugh or cry at candidate X's book – well, that's great, but did you come back thinking that X would be a good president? That's what counts.

Well, this and the buzz created by the book. In addition to convincing readers, the campaign book is also a direct marketing. It is there to give a temporary boost to a candidate, because the critics basically end up writing candidate X's profiles, almost exclusively from the candidate X's own words.

So.

So it is with a dose of self almost crippling. I am aware that I am consulting the new book by Kamala Harris, The Truths We Hold . The book is not a coincidence, comes at a time when Harris should launch his presidential campaign in the coming weeks. Harris talked about the book Tuesday on NPR.

As in many country books, The Truths We Hold reads like a memoir, but not really. Harris tells her story, but she uses it as a way to tell us what she really wants us to know about her

Her childhood shows us the values ​​that She received from her mother. The section on his time as District Attorney and then as Attorney General of California allows him to extol his achievements and to outline his political positions. Speaking of his time in the Senate allows him to further explain his position – and to oppose President Donald Trump, whom he is likely to face in a general election.

Reading a campaign book means being in your shoes. guard, because every detail has an ulterior motive. Let your guard flow and you may lose a personal anecdote to a political speech.

In one section, for example, Harris talks about trades that she did when she was a child. So, you might think (as I did): S that he likes the hook! What a fascinating glimpse of his hobb-gaaaaah. No, she uses it to tell us about the dignity of work.

This is only one of the ways in which the essential aspects of a good book go against the campaign book.

Similarly, the best protagonists have flaws. They are fighting something. And it is easy to understand why a person who could soon launch a presidential campaign might not be enthusiastic about publishing his struggles.

Harris actually conceals his. His account of the failure of the bar on the first try, and then his passage to the second, takes place in three paragraphs. Loretta Sanchez, opponent of the Senate, "democrat and resolute", has less than three sentences .

The facts are also carefully analyzed. For example, Harris is talking about his frustration with immigration policy in 2014, while "a major effort was being made by DC to speed up the decision-making process so that it would be easier for them to make a decision. they can quickly return undocumented children and families "

. attentive to history can remind that in 2014, the president was Barack Obama. And while in other parts of his book, Harris approves Obama-approved name checks – a popular type to whom she may want to make a speech about the stump – she forgets to name it here.

The platitudes are numerous. She recounts where she grew up: "It was a very united neighborhood of working families who were focused on working well, paying bills and being there for each other" – and no one could blaming if your mind went astray

There is an old clumsy old prose, as in his description of the March of Women: "There were so many people that cellular networks had broken down, yet the only thing that was going on was that they were not working. energy was electric. "

excellent book? No, this is not the case

But this is not a particularly interesting question because campaign books are rarely excellent readers. The question is whether it is an effective book .

In this respect, Harris is more successful. In The Truths We Hold Harris presents himself as a potentially formidable candidate for the presidency. That is to say: she effectively pleads her case, like the prosecutor she is

. Harris reads his resume and political positions. And this is where one of Harris' greatest strengths becomes obvious: anticipating critics and criticizing them.

For example, Harris has spent much of her career in law enforcement – a period she uses extensively in her book to show that she is tough and decisive. But she also predicts it might be off-putting for some Liberal voters who think the justice system is broken. She then presents herself as a kind of inner woman: "When activists came and knocked on the door, I wanted to be on the other side to let them in."

Which is to say: it is prepared as prepared

And although the prose may not be worthy of Pulitzer, there are regular sentences that sound particularly good for causing screams at a gathering campaign ("The American people did not let go)." the American dream … But when we can not sleep at night, how can we dream? "Prescription drugs are not luxury products. On the contrary. We do not want to need it! "

Readers may even see the birth of a campaign slogan as Harris recounts his first trial in a courtroom:

" When my turn came, I got up from the prosecutor's office and went to the podium, pronouncing the words uttered by each prosecutor: "Kamala Harris, for the people". "

asks to be read as a voiceover for an advertisement on political television

It is this courtroom experience that can explain exactly how Harris approached writing The Truths We Hold. Towards the end of her book, she explains how she advises young lawyers to write their closing arguments:

"Their job was to stand up and show the jury that two plus two plus two plus two lead, categorically, to eight. I would tell them to break down each element. Explain the logic of their argumentation. Explain to the jury how they came to their conclusion. "

Reading this book, it really feels like being in the jury box, patiently listening to a lawyer methodically laying – so tediously – a case.

Which is to say: The bar is not quite down with the campaign book.It may be more accurate to say that the bar is being replaced by a series of hoops.In his preliminary argument for 2020, Harris jumps through them.