I was surprised, as many were, that Kamala Harris chose Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her running mate. He was considered an unlikely candidate because he was a relative unknown, left-of-center, and because Minnesota is not considered a swing state in November. Personally I considered him an unlikely pick in part because he was the smart choice, and Democrats can usually be counted on to make bad decisions. (Hillary Clinton should obviously have picked Bernie Sanders as her running mate in 2016, for instance, unifying the party and energizing Bernie’s supporters, but chose the instantly forgettable Tim Kaine instead.)

The choice of Walz defies what I think of as the “simple-minded liberal view of American politics,” which is: to win over the maximum number of people, you “run to the center,” because if you are “too far to the left” you alienate people. Based on this theory, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro was considered the favorite to be the candidate. Former Clinton pollster Mark Penn explained the reasoning here: 

Choosing him would add an experienced governor from a swing state who could appeal to many moderate Democrats, independents and some Nikki Haley voters on a multitude of key issues. He would provide balance to the ticket and underscore that there is a place for moderates in today’s Democratic Party.

Statistician Nate Silver also thought Shapiro was the mathematically optimal selection, explaining that “the basic reasons for picking Shapiro are that he increases the likelihood you win Pennsylvania, he has a demonstrated track record of popularity in the most important swing state, he’s obviously an extremely talented politician and perhaps a future standard-bearer for the party himself.”

I call this a “simple-minded” view because many more things matter in politics than which candidate looks like they’ll give you a 3-point bump in Pennsylvania. Like, for example, do they come across as authentic? Are they easy to work with? Do they have liabilities that could cause serious problems? When we think beyond the D.C. conventional wisdom (centrism good, swing-state governors good), Walz was the obviously correct choice, and it wasn’t close.

Everyone likes Tim Walz. Joe Manchin likes him. Nancy Pelosi likes him. AOC likes him. The DSA likes him. He has oodles of personal charm. He is a veteran, a former football coach, and a social studies teacher. He is an effective spokesman on television, and seems down-home and authentic. He is the first Democratic candidate at the presidential or vice presidential level since 1980 not to have gone to law school. Josh Shapiro always seems like he’s doing an impersonation of Barack Obama. I cringe watching it, and that’s before Shapiro’s alienation of progressives and possible role in stalling the investigation of a murder.

The choice of Walz shows that Harris has good political instincts. She knew that conventional wisdom needed to be defied here, because Walz’s personal appeal is such a huge asset, one that doesn’t necessarily show up in Nate Silver’s charts. Harris also reportedly liked that Walz was deferential and unambitious, understanding that the Vice President should not upstage the president, while Shapiro gave her some qualms on this front.

So the choice of Walz is an encouraging sign that Harris and the Democrats are not screwing up the election. But progressives are also delighted with Walz because he appears to share many of their values. As the governor of Minnesota, he signed a raft of progressive pieces of legislation, including introducing paid family and medical leave, legalizing recreational cannabis use, restoring voting rights to felons, and providing “free breakfast and lunch for all students attending public and charter schools in Minnesota” regardless of income. The Minnesota legislature passed a series of pro-worker laws under Walz, including “banning non-compete clauses and mandatory anti-union captive audience meetings, strengthening protections for warehouse and meatpacking workers, allowing teachers to bargain over class sizes… and cracking down on wage theft.”

Walz is an effective spokesman for these policies, and says things like “don’t ever shy away from our progressive values, one person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.” It’s refreshing to see someone willing to champion basic ideas like non-means tested free school meals, and the enthusiasm at the first joint Harris-Walz rally was infectious. Republican attacks on Walz so far have been pathetic, from Ben Shapiro noting he looks somewhat like Don Rickles (So what?) to Chaya Raychik calling him “Tampon Tim” (because he signed a law guaranteeing the availability of menstrual products to all students who menstruate). The Wall Street Journal editorial board, in their effort to brand Walz a zany liberal radical, ended up listing policy accomplishments that most Americans agree with. Another Wall Street Journal opinion piece warned that Walz and his fellow radicals in state government “have spent the [state’s $18 billion budget surplus] on infrastructure, education and other programs that will burden the state for years.” Oh no, Minnesota will be burdened with education for years! Walz has also already given Democrats their favorite attack line of the season by branding Trump and Vance “weird.” 

But we need to be careful. Notice that everything I’ve described so far explains why Walz is going to be good at helping Kamala Harris win the presidential election. But we should be interested in who wins presidential elections because of the consequences, and having a progressive on the ticket only makes a difference if a Harris administration actually brings about major progressive policies. As my colleague Lily Sánchez puts it, “just because Walz is a bear of a man with neighborly vibes and does normal things like feed school kids, remember he is a politician, and all of them deserve our intense scrutiny, not our fandom or giddy support before they've even released a platform.”

Indeed, Harris’ campaign website does not include an actual policy agenda. (It has four sections, “Meet Kamala Harris,” “Meet Tim Walz,” “Take Action,” and “Store.”) We know that Kamala Harris is under significant pressure from donors to be more pro-corporate than Joe Biden (who had a reasonably good record on antitrust and a pro-union National Labor Relations Board). There are worrying signs that the donor pressure is working, and Harris has declined to publicly commit to keeping crusading FTC head Lina Khan in office. Harris may have chosen a “progressive” vice president, but she has been backing off her actual commitments to progressive policies. As I was watching Harris’ speech yesterday, which was enthusiastically received, I couldn’t help but think about how easy it would have been for her to say that if she became president, she would fight to make sure Medicare covered everybody. She didn’t say that, although she talked about how Tim Walz took his high school football team to the state championships. 

Here’s the risk: Progressives will be appeased, even delighted, by the choice of Walz, which we are told “may signify a nod to those on the left wing of the party.” But a “nod” does no good on its own, and the left must demand more. Walz’s folksy defenses of Midwestern social democracy will make the Harris campaign look like it’s refusing to “run to the center” (as centrists insist it must do to get elected). But vice presidents don’t actually do much of anything (unless they happen to be Dick Cheney), and Walz’s selection may give the left a symbolic victory without that victory translating into anything real. 

Take, for instance, the war on Gaza. Josh Shapiro was criticized for comments he had made about pro-Palestine protesters and appalling things he’d written about Palestinians as a college student. Tim Walz appears to have said vaguely positive things about the Uncommitted movement in Michigan (describing them as “civically engaged folks”), and lamented the suffering of Palestinian civilians. Taking an opening shot at his opponent, J.D. Vance said that Harris “listened to the Hamas wing of her own party in selecting a nominee.” 

But it appears that Tim Walz has said almost nothing as Israel has unleashed unprecedented death and destruction on Gaza, and has apparently even declined to meet with Palestinian families. Both he and Harris have confined themselves to treating the war as a tragedy, failing to rise to the occasion. Harris does not appear to be promising anything different from Biden's approach on Gaza, and her recent response to protesters at a campaign event certainly does not make her look like she understands the scale of the horror her administration is supporting. (Harris suggested the protesters must want Donald Trump to win, which she surely knows is grossly unfair.) The goodwill toward Harris and Walz will evaporate quickly if they do not demonstrate an understanding of the fact that this is a horrific crime against humanity, just as in the late 1960s no minimally morally serious person could support someone who ignored the Vietnam War. At the very least, war crimes need to be called war crimes, and the minimal moral bar to clear is to discuss the war as Israeli journalist Gideon Levy does. Levy says plainly that Israel is destroying Gaza in violation of basic moral principles and international law, and that every American has an obligation to call this crime what it is and try to stop it, because we are funding and arming it. 

Now, we know that those who criticize Israel too harshly are swiftly met with fierce political blowback from AIPAC. I once lost a job at a liberal newspaper for criticizing U.S. military aid to Israel in the mildest possible way. There are consequences to taking a moral stand over Gaza, and we can see why pragmatic politicians would stay silent. But let’s be clear that Harris and Walz are currently being silent about one of the worst crimes against humanity of our time, a crime that our country is supporting. They should be pressured over that, and defenders of Palestinian human rights know that the selection of Walz means nothing in and of itself for Palestinian lives.

I was not immune to the joy that many people felt at seeing Walz chosen, and seeing his energetic rally with Harris in Philadelphia. For such a long time, Democrats have put forward people who seem inauthentic (Hillary Clinton), lie constantly (Joe Biden), and/or offer soaring rhetoric with little action behind it (Barack Obama). Tim Walz has a record of actually doing useful things, and seems like he could help Democrats win back the working class. In the New York Times, author Sarah Smarsh says that seeing Walz selected is “an absolute balm for my country heart” after the frustration of seeing how ineffective Democrats have been for so long at countering Trump’s pitch to rural voters. Harris and Walz can pack a stadium. They can make people smile. They seem like they could actually win an election.

But we have to make concrete demands of our politicians. They need to deliver. Yes, I’m totally delighted seeing Tim Walz post on social media about his dog locking himself in the master bedroom. But I also know that “puppaganda” is a way that we get distracted from serious discussions of what the business of governance is actually about. I know that over the next few months, I’m going to see lots of clips of Tim Walz being considerate to people, saying hello to Girl Scouts, holding a piglet, etc. We will see more “reshared clips of Walz lightly mocking his daughter’s vegetarianism and tinkering with his car to paint him as the dad that America needs right now.” I think it’s great that Tim Walz’ “big dad energy” delights people, but I am also deeply wary of the parasocial aspect of politics, where people become so invested in the characters of our national political drama that we forget to ask what their climate policy is going to be. Charles Blow in the New York Times credits Harris and Walz for giving Democrats their “joy” back, but notes that Harris “isn’t articulating policy positions that differ substantially from President Biden’s” and is rather “allowing herself to be the vessel for pent-up liberal energy.” Alright, but being a “vessel for energy” isn’t what we want out of our elected leaders. 

There are serious crises in our world. One of them is, of course, the threat posed by Donald Trump and the fascists in his orbit. I am glad that Harris and Walz seem serious and energetic about defeating that threat (although “weird” is not personally the word I would use to describe admirers of Franco and Pinochet). I think Harris is clearly politically astute, and the choice of Walz shows that she knows Democrats need to win back a lot of voters they’ve lost. But we cannot be satisfied with good vibes alone. We have to demand a program to deal with the crises that face the world, from the climate catastrophe to the threat of war with other major nuclear-armed states like Russia and China. There are encouraging signs about Walz (he has lived in China for instance, and seems less likely to accelerate a catastrophic conflict with China than some hawkish Democrats). But we have to keep up the pressure on our politicians to deliver the goods.