President Biden spoke up to reveal that Vice President Kamala Harris is entrusted with a broad range of responsibilities in his administration; these span across the sphere of both domestic and foreign policy. This marks a unique point as it seems to be running counter to the Vice President’s own narrative. Over time, Harris has been observed in multiple instances attempting to carve an identity separate from the shared legacy of the current administration, stressing upon her fresh ideas and forward-looking approach.
In a conversation with Brian Taff from Philadelphia’s Action News 6 ABC held in September, Harris highlighted her focus. The Vice President maintained that her goal was to bring forth innovative policies responding to present times and looking ahead into what the country might require in the coming decades. ‘Bringing our nation up to speed with the 21st century is my primary preoccupation,’ she conveyed candidly.
Harris refused to be seen as simply a continuation of Biden and argued for her distinct style of leadership. This was encapsulated in her set of examples outlining the unfulfilled goals of the existing administration. The acknowledgement that there were areas where the administration has faltered seemed unusual, but it was a necessary admission given her premise of representing a ‘new generation of leadership’.
However, the gotcha moment occurred during recent polling by RMG Research in September. Results depicted that 57% of registered voters didn’t feel any significant improvement in their circumstances under the reign of the present administration. These voters reported feeling better off in the tenure of the previous president – Donald Trump, four years ago.
In another survey conducted by Pew Research, only one-fourth of Americans considered that the economic conditions under the present administration have been ‘excellent or good’. Contrastingly, the majority seemed less than satisfied with the economy’s state. This demonstrates a significant disconnect between voters and the current leadership’s perceived success.
Interestingly, Biden made an appearance on The View where he campaigned for Harris. However, he unexpectedly gave a twist to the narrative by appearing to attribute part of the blame for the administration’s lack of success in few key areas to Harris. He referred to failures in curbing inflation, managing the southern border, and making a well-organized withdrawal from Afghanistan.
He further declared, ‘In my role as Vice President, there was nothing I performed that she couldn’t. For this reason, I could assign her tasks concerning everything from foreign to domestic policy.’ To viewers, this statement invoked both his faith in her abilities and placed a spotlight on her involvement in the administration’s successes and failures.
Simultaneously, Biden’s words amplified a difficult situation Harris already found herself confronting. She wanted to address policies on public safety, inflation and border security, proposals that contradicted the actions of the current administration. This ambiguity places Harris in a challenging position, inclined to criticize as well as defend the very same administration’s policies.
In the light of these contradictions, Harris’s task is doubly complex. She must advocate for policies that would rectify the current issues – the ones she openly identifies as failures of the administration – which would call for underlying a different political direction. Yet, in emphasizing these needed changes, she leans towards undermining the very administration she is a part of.
Her responsibility extends towards validating the administration’s policies as well, to bolster her own track record in office and validate her potential candidacy. Balancing this dual role of a critic and a loyalist is far from simple. It is like treading a tightrope, a process of constant reassessments and readjustments to prevent a fall from public favor.
By Biden’s delegation of expansive duties, her every action reflects extensively on the overarching decisions of the administration. Both successful ventures and mishaps would be traced back to her, further complicating her position of asserting individuality while aligning with the administration.
As things stand, it would be intriguing to observe how Harris navigates this labyrinth of political obligations, personal aspirations, and the larger aims of the administration she represents. Can she strike an equilibriate relation between her individual aims and her commitments as Vice President? Does she have the potential to bring forth a new generation of leadership whilst functioning as part of an existing one?
Only time will reveal how this interplay unfolds. For now, it appears that Harris is striving to negotiate the delicate balance of these contrasting forces. The test for her is to succeed in leading the nation forward, rectify the perceived failures, all while aligning with the larger vision and decisions of the administration.
While some may perceive her actions as a tug of war between individual ambitions and administrative decisions, others may see it as the very essence of modern governance – a vibrant, sometimes conflicting, yet critical amalgamation of differing views coalescing for the common good.
BIDEN: “As Vice President, there wasn’t a single thing that I did that she couldn’t do and so I was able to delegate her responsibility on everything from foreign policy to domestic policy.”
Joe is Kamala. Kamala is Joe. pic.twitter.com/iPAPZUoOjL
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 25, 2024