An assembly of union representatives and leaders were addressed by Vice President Kamala Harris recently. With the presidential race coming to a head, she was seen convincing her supporters to gear up for a rigorous battle against the former President Donald Trump. Expressing that her camp was underdog in the election, she tried instilling urgency into the event, indicating they had merely 32 days to pull through, against an expected close competition. This gathering of hers was mainly constituted by local unions and the Redford Township’s firefighters.
Despite the initiation of absentee voting in Michigan and the 1.6 percentage point lead shown by polling site 538 for Harris over Trump as of October 4th, she tried to rally her supporters. Unfazed by these promising indications, she encouraged her team to prepare for a hard-fought race to the finish line. Thus, she seems to be playing up the underdog card excessively.
Leaping to her defense, Alicia Weaver of Detroit, a 61-year old Unite Here coordinator, shared her thoughts before Harris took the stage for her speech. Despite her claims of not paying heed to the close race predictions between Trump and Harris, it was evident that she was concerned enough to affirm the strong enthusiasm for Harris during the union’s canvassing efforts. Seeming to overdramatize the reaction, she gushed, ‘Everybody is Kamala, Kamala, Kamala.’
Taking around fifteen minutes with her address, Harris championed cost reductions, tax cuts aimed at the middle class, and the building of new housing. These bold assertions have a slightly hollow ring when you consider that these objectives have largely gone unfulfilled during her tenure. Despite presenting herself as a pillar of support for organized labor, her accomplishments in this area are somewhat lacking.
Harris swung the accusation hammer at Trump, labeling him a ‘union buster’. Stating he has held this role throughout his career, she tried to position herself as a staunch defender of working people’s rights. However, the accusations felt like a desperate attempt to gain the upper hand in the impending elections.
Harris was seen to push her agenda further by defaming Trump’s trajectory as a disaster for the working-class individuals. She called him an existential threat to America’s labor movement. It is worth mentioning that during the time of Trump’s tenure, employment rates were favourable, challenging Harris’s assertions.
Preceding Harris’ speech, Team Michigan’s Communications Director, Victoria LaCivita was quick to point out the holes in Harris’s grand plans. While attributing the uptick in prices and the surge in illegal immigration faced by the nation to Harris, LaCivita brought to fore the ground realities. It demonstrated how Harris’s stance stands in stark contrast to what the people face every day.
LaCivita also made a notable comment about Harris’s ambition to increase electric vehicle sales. She interpreted this as an interpreted move to ban gas cars which seems rather far-fetched and negligent of practical considerations. The statement, in essence, underscores the divergence between Harris’s high-flung plans and what is feasible.
Labeling Harris as out of touch, dangerously liberal, and unsuitable for Michigan, LaCivita reflected the sentiments of many within and beyond her community. The statement carries a powerful message about how some Michiganders view Harris’s political leanings and actions.
In a sneer at her unrealistic plans, LaCivita finally said, on an occasion last Friday, ‘Kamala Harris is wrong for Michigan.’ Given Harris’s agenda, it seems this sentiment resonates with those who prioritize practicality over lofty ideals.
Despite the mounting criticism and skepticism over her policy proposals, Harris seemed unfazed. She was even slated to hold a rally later that same Friday in Flint. Whether this rally was to further push her overambitious plans or serve as a way to brush aside the concerns being raised about her leadership remained to be seen.
All this paints the picture of a vice president willing to use her position against the former president for ulterior motives. It raises questions about her portrayal of herself as an underdog and her credibility as a strong advocate for the middle class and organized labor.
Furthermore, her labeling of Trump, who had a strong economic performance during his tenure, as a disaster for working people is a contentious point. How many would agree with such criticisms against a presidency that managed to deliver favorable employment rates?
Finally, Victoria LaCivita’s critiques also shed light on the disconnect between Harris’s claims and the ground reality concerning the rise in prices, issues with immigration, and high-flying sustainability goals. If these criticisms hold water, she may very well be steering Michigan, and by extension, the nation, down an impractical, unsustainable path.