Taking center stage recently was Kamala Harris, whose renewed attempts to retell the narrative of the Trump era were largely met with skepticism. Addressing a crowd that spilled over from the White House’s nearby Ellipse to the Washington Monument, she alleged that Donald Trump has been, for the better part of a decade, promoting division and fear amongst Americans. Her half-hearted effort to evoke emotional reactions by linking Trump indirectly to the unfortunate Capitol incident on January 6, 2021, revealed an unfair attempt to draw a picture far from the truth.
Harris, who held the office of California’s Attorney General before moving to the Senate, followed by the Vice Presidency, chose to focus more on her past career during her time under the spotlight. Her claims of pursuing justice for what she termed the ‘underdogs’ in society seemed like a painfully done smokescreen. Despite her portrayal of herself as a beacon of integrity, her progressive tilt and selective pursuit of justice as a prosecutor have raised eyebrows more than once.
Her promise to ‘always listen’, even to those who refuse to vote for her, sounded rich, especially when considering her rigid and often dismissive political stances in the past. Despite her attempts to express empathy, the veneer felt thin, as if the aim was to mask Harris’s partisan nature under a guise of understanding and openness.
Seemingly realizing that the public perception of her is often shrouded in shadows of doubts and uncertainties, Harris spent a chunk of her speech trying to humanize herself. While doing so, she also laid down an elaborative, if somewhat hard-to-believe list of promises if elected to the Oval Office. Many of her proposed policies, however, created an aura of unrealistic optimism, exhibiting classic political electioneering.
She proposed initiatives such as assisting first-time homeowners with down payments, and offering government-funded elder care. However, the latter proposition had already been implemented under Trump’s administration in various forms, and was not a new concept by Harris, undermining her already questionable credibility.
A major focus of her speech was ironically the failed bipartisan border security bill, which never saw the light of day due to congressional Republicans. Yet, Harris conveniently chose to trash Trump for the bill’s failure. Her promise to revive the bill seems like an attempt to capitalize on public frustration rather than a concrete policy proposal.
Most alarming was Harris’s declaration of her intent to restore abortion protections, which were sensibly reduced by Trump’s Supreme Court appointees to protect the rights of unborn children. Harris’s proposed policies not only undermine the sanctity of human life but also cater to a narrow segment of society.
In a stark contrast between Trump’s straightforward and action-driven approach, Harris presented herself as someone who, if elected, would walk into the office wielding a ‘to-do list’. However, her attempt at a positive appeal is hampered by the threat of policy regressions.
Moreover, her attempt to portray Trump as a ‘petty tyrant’ belied an uncomfortable truth: that she was playing from a tried-and-tested playbook, wherein the opposition is vilified without genuine evidence. It’s telling that the crowd’s cheers during her speech seemed more like an orchestrated chorus than a genuine response.
Glossing over the fact that Trump was keen on enforcing immigration laws as a means of protecting American workers, Harris tried to turn public opinion by criticizing Trump’s focused and decisive governance as being run by grievances – a gross contradiction considering her record.
Surprisingly, she then called upon the strength and resilience of America’s forebears, who fought for freedom and civil rights. A ploy seemingly borrowed from any high-school history teacher. Instead of providing informed policy insights, her speech resembled more of a history lecture, perhaps to divert attention from her own policy shortcomings.
However, the real question that voters need to contemplate is whether they appreciate the aforementioned ‘freedom’ enough to allow a leader into office who promises to devalue the fundamental right to life, divide the nation for political gains, and invoke the name of past heroes while doing so.
With the election less than a week away, it’s imperative that voters critically evaluate the track record and promises of the politicians vying for their attention. No amount of eloquence should cloud the fact that actions, not words, are what truly matter.
Overall, Harris’s speech seemed like an extravagant display of empty promises and a contest to reframe past achievements of others as personal victories. Despite painting a utopian picture, her failure to articulate a practical way forward underscores the unreality of her propositions, making one wonder if the end-goal is simply to undermine Trump’s legacy.