Ka-meleon

Will she be the progressive that ran for President in 2020, or Biden 2.0? Will she "chart a new way forward," or just run away from the old? Will the real Kamala Harris PLEASE stand up.

CHICAGO — Political speeches, especially convention speeches, should come with a disclaimer and trigger warning: “The following contains material that is not suitable for all audiences, viewer discretion is advised. It contains content upsetting to members of the opposing party, or to anyone tired of hearing the same old campaign promises. The following speech is mostly a work of fiction, and any similarity to actual events or facts, or resemblance to actual people, is unintentional and entirely coincidental.”

With the Democratic coup complete, Kamala Harris has now officially deposed Joe Biden by accepting the Democratic nomination for President at the party’s convention in Chicago. Harris gave her eagerly anticipated acceptance speech to a convention hall full of adoring delegates, party faithful, Hollywood celebrities, titans of industry, and a frustrated press. The king is dead (oops, Trigger warning—violence), long live the Queen.

Harris emerged triumphant from a convention that shut out the party's pro-Palestinian wing and featured taunting d**k jokes from the Obamas, without having to endure the indignity of a primary, or tough questions from the press. She has been widely criticized for refusing to give interviews or answer questions from reporters, to expand on her promises, or tell us how she would accomplish them. The New York Times has described her campaign as “Heavy on Buzz, Light on Policy.”

Would she, as she declared at the beginning of her acceptance speech, “chart a new way forward,” or would she be Biden 2.0? Will her “new way forward” actually mean going back to her 2020 progressive presidential campaign? If you were wondering before her convention speech—you’re certainly still wondering now.

“And you see throughout the week,” New York Times columnist Carlos Lozada said when describing the convention, “there was a lot of creditmongering on her behalf for all the stuff that people liked in the Biden record and a lot of silence on the stuff that people did not like on the Biden record. Bernie Sanders did a lot of that.”

Pro-choice patriotism

Harris spoke inspiringly of her modest upbringing in a one-parent household led by her mother, and her record of public service as a prosecutor in the District Attorney’s office and as the Attorney General of California. She presented herself as a tough prosecutor with a soft heart—a woman of the people. “And to be clear,” she said, “ and to be clear, my entire career, I’ve only had one client: the people.”

Beyond her backstory, however, Harris didn’t spend much time on policy. There was a defiant defense of abortion rights, a claim (that strains credulity) that she, not Trump, is the true protector of the border, a passing mention of something she’s calling the “opportunity economy,” a brief foray into foreign affairs (support for Ukraine, and a vague promise to support Israel), and attacks, of course, on Donald Trump and his “billionaire friends”—ironically, in front of her billionaire friends, some who had paid as much as $5 million to watch the convention from luxury suites lining the convention hall.

“The speech went into detail, as far as I could tell, on Roe v. Wade being a good thing and Donald Trump being responsible for overturning it,” writes New York Times columnist Ross Duothat. “It went into some detail, I guess, on foreign policy in a kind of generic, America should lead the free world and Donald Trump has creepy affection for tyrants and strongmen. And it went into some detail on Jan. 6 being a disgraceful event and not wishing to bring back the man responsible for that disgrace. So pro-choice patriotism, I guess, was the substantive argument.”

The editorial board at the Wall Street Journal also wondered aloud where the “beef” was. “Kamala Harris introduced herself to the American public on Thursday evening and her presentation was much like this week’s Democratic convention: well delivered, confident and optimistic, and mostly devoid of policy substance.” The Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, wrote that “Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech on the final night of the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago featured high rhetoric but not many facts easily checked.”

They say the “devil is in the details,” and to the extent that’s true, the Harris campaign has been, so far, a political exorcism. She has cast evil detail out of her campaign, and instead relied on promises and platitudes. While she did say that if elected President she would sign a bill guaranteeing a national right to abortion, and claimed that she, not Trump, would secure the border by signing the bipartisan border bill that failed in Congress earlier this year, her speech was mostly devoid of specificity. And unless Democrats take over the House and retain the Senate—neither is assured—it’s unlikely she’ll have a chance to make good on either of those promises.

“Her largest distortion concerned abortion,” according to a Wall Street Journal editorial, “claiming that Mr. Trump wants to pass a national ban on ‘reproductive rights,’ which is the euphemism Democrats now use for abortion. Mr. Trump has stated time and again that abortion should be a state issue and he won’t sign a national ban.” Democrats are running hard on reproductive rights, but that might not be enough as they try to court independents and disaffected Republicans.

Voters, especially independents, are much more concerned with the economy. According to the survey firm Gallop, 79% of Americans describe the economy as “poor” or “fair.” Besides the intentionally ambiguous promise to “create what I call an opportunity economy,” and “to lower the cost of everyday needs like health care and housing and groceries,” she provided no specifics on how she would do either. She’ll likely have to do better if she wants to win over uncommitted voters.

To calm fears that she might be weak on defense, Harris said that “As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” Again, the Washington Post’s fact-checker reminded readers that “Biden proposed spending reductions,” to the military. “Harris, having suddenly become the Democratic nominee, has not put out detailed policy papers yet,” Kessler wrote, “but it’s worth noting that Biden repeatedly proposed budgets that have failed to keep military spending ahead of inflation.”

And speaking of fear, if details won’t move voters, maybe scaring them will. Writing in the American Psychological Association’s newsletter, Kirk Waldorf notes that “fear is a powerful motivator in elections.” Harris, for example, repeated her oft-debunked claim that Trump wants to cut Social Security and Medicare. “We are not going back to when Donald Trump tried to cut Social Security and Medicare,” she said. “This is mostly false,” wrote Kessler, “We have awarded the Harris-Walz campaign Three Pinocchios [the more Pinocchios the greater the “exaggeration”] for a version of this claim, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from asserting this all week.”

Kamala the Chameleon?

In her convention speech, Harris leaned heavily on her experiences as a prosecutor—with the implication that she would be tough on crime. The promotional materials for her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor's Plan to Make Us Safer,” described her philosophy as “making the criminal justice system truly — not just rhetorically — tough.” But, as the New York Times reports, “By the time she ran for president in 2019, Ms. Harris was no longer talking tough. She called herself a progressive prosecutor and proposed to end the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentences and cash bail.” And now as a presidential candidate in 2024, “she is back to being a Top Cop,” the Times Shalia Dewan wrote. “Ms. Harris’s central pitch to voters has been her record as a prosecutor who has put away ‘predators, fraudsters and cheaters’.”

Much like her stance on crime, Harris’ position on border security has been…let’s say…flexible. Some might say “opportunistic.” As a presidential candidate in 2020 she criticized President Trump’s border policies as “medieval.” And as Vice President, she stood by as millions of illegals flooded across the border, overrunning the social service networks of cities, counties, and towns across the country. Even Democrats were pleading with the administration to get tougher. “This crisis originated with the federal government, and it must be resolved with the federal government,” New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul said last year. “The challenges we face demand a much more vigorous federal approach.”

“The answer to this question [about what to do about the border] is not can we find more places for migrants to fit in New York City and in New York state,” New York City Mayor Eric Adams said. “That’s just not the answer. The answer is how do we stop the flow … Any plan that does not include stopping the flow at the border, is a failed plan.”

As a presidential candidate in 2024, after mostly ignoring the border as Vice President, border security is at the top of her agenda. “Let me be clear, after decades in law enforcement,” she told the convention crowd, “I know the importance of safety and security, especially at our border.” Beyond committing to signing the failed border bill, however, she offered no specifics. “On Immigration,” New York Times editorial board member Farah Stockman wrote, “Harris Is a Bit of a Chameleon.”

Sticking to her guns

In her convention speech, Harris said that “we must also be steadfast in advancing our security and values abroad. As vice president, I have confronted threats to our security, negotiated with foreign leaders, strengthened our alliances and engaged with our brave troops overseas.”

Monday was the third anniversary of the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and give Harris credit for loyalty, if not for good judgement. While saying she mourned and honored the servicemen and women who were killed by terrorists as the US fled, she also said “President Biden made the courageous and right decision to end America’s longest war.” When she says she “engaged with our brave troops overseas,” I’m not sure that’s what they had in mind.

“The withdrawal decision was arguably the worst of Mr. Biden’s Presidency,” according to a Wall Street Journal editorial, “as he ignored the advice of nearly all of his advisers that a date-certain, total retreat would likely result in the collapse of the Afghan government and a Taliban takeover.” Harris has said she was with the President during all major decisions—so that would be a decision she will have to defend if, or when, she agrees to be interviewed.

Kamala, Kamala, where are you…on the issues?

Like many politicians, Harris has a penchant of changing her tune when the music doesn’t suit the crowd. Since she has been refusing interviews and hasn’t scheduled any press conferences since President Biden withdrew from the race (sound familiar), it’s been impossible to pin her down on any of her statements or promises.

“The problem with Harris is that she’s a political chameleon — a tough-on-crime prosecutor in one phase of her career, a self-described ‘radical’ in another,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens said. “Voters will want to figure out whether she’s a pragmatist (good), an opportunist (not good) or a phony (doubleplusungood). One way to find out is to insist that she sit down for some serious journalistic interviews and answer a few difficult questions.”

Early voting in some states, like the pivotal battleground state of North Carolina, begins next week. Playing keep-away from the press and public might be an effective campaign strategy, but does it hold up to the promise that Harris made in her convention speech. “Never let anyone tell you who you are. You show them who you are,” she said, “let us show each other and the world who we are and what we stand for.”

It’s time, Kamala, to show us.