The Democratic pair of VP Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) doesn’t claim a shred of popularity when seen under the policy magnifying glass, reinforcing the belief that Republicans could capitalize on this vulnerability. Harris is notorious for proposing drastic slashes in police funding, an idea that has received extreme backlash from the public.
Moreover, Harris persistently encourages street demonstrations despite visible instances of peaceful protests derailing into violent clashes. Walz, on the other hand, displayed a concerning delay in deploying National Guard troops in response to the Minneapolis mayor’s appeal during deadly riots. Ignoring the pain and damage, he casually termed the rampant destruction and resultant ashes as emblematic of ‘generations of pain and anguish unseen’.
Support for the Black Lives Matter movement, once a majority-held sentiment, has been on a steady decline. The Harris-Walz duo, however, turn a blind eye to this shift in public opinion. Furthermore, their approach to international affairs, particularly on the unrest seen on college grounds, is nothing short of reactive.
While student activists rally in support of the Palestinians in Gaza, Harris praises their actions as an example of ‘true human emotion’. She went as far as calling for an arms embargo on Israel. However, this stance largely contradicts public sentiment, which is mostly opposed to the student protests.
Both Harris and Walz showcase glaring ignorance towards public opinion, especially on education-related matters. They flunk impressively in evaluations conducted by school choice groups, while ironically, public support for school choice is at an all-time high.
The Biden-Harris era brainchild, along with Walz, propagate controversial school policies that bar parents from gaining information about their children’s chosen ‘gender identities’. Despite this, the vast majority of voters stress the necessity for schools to disclose such information to parents.
Walz’s unequivocal support of the transgender movement led him to designate Minnesota as a ‘safe haven’ for gender transitioning. He moved on to ratify laws that could potentially empower the state to separate a child from their parent(s) during a custody dispute if the parent(s) contested the child’s gender transition. These regulations painted the entire government machinery as an advocate of the transition movement, neglecting the concerns of skeptical parents.
Contrary to Walz’s outrageous understanding, the public predominantly supports the recognition of the original birth sex. They are not in favor of the alterations to ‘identity’ documented for athletic participation or bathroom usage. They are also against schools teaching lessons on transgenderism.
Walz stumbles against public sentiment again with his oddly profound admiration for China, having visited the country 30 times. His laudatory remarks for the Chinese communist system hardly sit well with the 81% Americans harboring unfavorable views of China. Similarly, his fond utterance, ‘One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness,’ contradicts the public aversion for socialism.
Walz seems to extend his ‘neighborliness’ selectively, notably omitting newborns surviving failed abortion attempts. To cite an example, he shockingly nullified the Minnesota Born Alive Infant Protection Act, thus putting vulnerable newborns already breathing on their own at greater risk.
Walz’s stance on abortion is remarkably extreme as well, defending an alleged ‘inherent right’ to abortion and voicing zero statutory constraints on abortions, irrespective of the timing or reasoning. It opposes the views of over two-thirds of the public who disapprove of allowing abortions beyond the 24th week of pregnancy.
Harris appears disturbingly dismissive of the rights of living, breathing abortion survivors, as demonstrated by her consistent votes against a national version of bills protecting infants born alive.
The propensity of the Biden-Harris administration for increasing taxes as well as an unexpected law augmenting IRS agents by a massive 87,000, emphasizes their predilection for unpopular mandates. This not only transforms the IRS into the least favorite government agency but also causes 56% of the public to condemn and desire a repeal of this law.
All these factors contribute to the fact that the Harris-Walz partnership isn’t as sugary sweet as it pretends to be. Stripped off the initial enthusiasm, their radical stance on several issues is bound to get the Republicans’ spotlight.
Essential policy aspects which should be the decision-making backbone are played down in the Harris-Walz strategy. If only policy were the ultimate decider, Harris-Walz would find themselves sinking in their self-dug pit of defeat.