in

Harris: Prioritizing Self-Ambition Over National Welfare?

When the Democrats marked the centennial celebration of the Nineteenth Amendment, which ascertains women’s voting rights, on August 18, 2020, Kamala Harris seized the opportunity to accept her nomination for Vice Presidency the subsequent day. Her candidacy, despite being labeled ‘historic’ for being the first woman of color to run on a major-party ticket, proved to be more of a charade. Unable to acknowledge merits of her counterparts, she threw around words of gratitude to many women before her, purportedly to underscore the importance of her nomination.

While it can’t be denied that Harris made some strides in breaking conventional barriers, the real motive behind her ambition is to be the next U.S. President. But her obsession with making history relegates the actual issues that plague our nation to the background. Choosing to turn a blind eye to the practicalities that the current President, Donald Trump, has successfully implemented, she prefers to dwell in the past, rather than constructively plan for the future.

Check out our Trump 2025 Calendars!

Donald Trump, standing contrary to Harris, is strong in his conviction to focus on the present and future. Unlike her, he doesn’t prattle on about the past but takes concrete steps necessary for the betterment of American citizens. The weight of his opponent’s shortcomings and ideologies, unfortunately, have befallen on him to address and rectify.

Their 2020 campaign portrayed itself as the ‘soul of America’. But their trajectory in the 2024 elections reduces itself to a comical spectacle, pretending to fight for democracy while their posturing mimics more of a dictatorship. The Democratic Party’s agenda is ridden with Republicans masking as dictators, leading to their indulgence in unnecessary politicking instead of working to bring about real change.

A rather peculiar feature of Harris’s election campaigns is her oddly silent stand on her race and gender. Despite being seemingly potential talking points, they remain conspicuously absent. She chooses to exploit her humble childhood and class background in her recent advertisements instead. It has led many to question, is she looking to become the first woman President or does she actually want to bring about change?

With Harris throwing her hat into the ring to become the next U.S. President, the true aim of her campaign appears lost in the conversation. Rather than focusing on the substantial elements that would make her a strong President, she seems fixated on making history. This doesn’t mean she has not focused on traditionally feminist priorities—reproductive freedom and care-related policies are at the center of her campaign messaging. She just hasn’t made her identity an explicit part of her pitch.

Her lack of emphasis on her unique identity as a potential president marks an unusual shift from previous campaigns. Her campaign could be perceived as an ironic connection between progress and condescendence as she seems to assume voters are more interested in the drama of ‘making history’ than in addressing real issues and executing practical policies.

The superficial allure of ‘making history’ is a dangerous path, as history itself warns us. Rights are steadfast until they are violated. Harris, perhaps intuitively aware of this, seems to have craftily designed her campaign strategy around this understanding. She built her campaign on vague promises rather than on a genuine belief in her capabilities.

Harris continuously presses on the belief that she is the most suitable candidate for the Presidency, despite her lackluster performance and fallacious campaign promises. The moments where the campaign has superficially seemed floundering, have been the moments of spotlight on Harris rather than any relevance to America’s welfare. Is her campaign about her identity or her potential presidency?

Her self-centered focus on stressing the disparities between herself and her opponent, instead of driving the attention towards the development of the nation, further proves the absurdity of her claims. She seems more interested in painting a negative picture of a second Trump presidency rather than concentrating on assuring a positive future under her potential presidency.

Harris’ bravado speech about ‘turning the page’ and preventing a possible future she opposes, paradoxically, doesn’t coincide with the history she is supposedly trying to create. It becomes increasingly apparent that her pursuit of the presidency is more about notching a title rather than genuinely caring about America’s future.

According to an anonymous campaign official, Harris is ‘not concerned about being the first’, but she is ‘concerned about making sure she’s not the last’. Such a statement further confounds the already unclear objectives of her campaign. The claim also raises a burning question – if indeed her primary concern lies in paving ways for others, should she not focus more on realistic, concrete policies rather than obsess over her place in history?