Vice President Kamala Harris has continued to disappoint with her lack of press availability. Despite cries from journalists and the public at large for accountability, Harris maintains a puzzling radio silence. Some may argue that this behavior is simply a result of her recent nomination but surely, setting forward timetables, obligations and an electoral platform, should not be at the expense of transparency and public scrutiny.
Within her first month as the official nominee, Harris has chosen to focus solely on consolidating support and strengthening her internal campaign mechanisms. While it’s typical for candidates to need time to organize their campaign, other candidates seem to manage these tasks without losing the ability to communicate with the public. Though she may be busy deciding strategy, choosing a running mate, and conducting rallies, it’s a poor reflection on her ability to multitask and manage the demands of office.
Ironically, the main communication we have witnessed from Harris was during her recent interview on the ideologically agreeing CNN. Here she vaguely discussed her values and future plans for the country, which have been broad strokes at best. Her approach emphasizes pandering over substance, and voters deserve better.
It is of continual exasperation to many that former President Trump is targeted for his blunt speech and in-the-moment decisions. Yet, his approach, however unconventional, offered a level of transparency previously unseen in the political arena. Even with Trump’s eccentricities, at least he was not elusive with the press corps, a lesson Harris could stand to learn.
An interesting aspect here is the Democratic party’s claim that they voted for the Biden-Harris ticket, even though it was the President, not the public, who endorsed Harris as his Vice Presidential pick. This democratic process, meant to give voice to citizens, seems to have been hijacked by the elites of the party.
While Democratic stalwarts would have us believe that the succession was smooth and coordinated, it seems rather an expedient decision, and certainly not reflective of the broader sentiment within the voting public. If a candidate is not democratically selected by a party’s supporters, can they genuinely expect to have the mandate of the people?
Democrats have dismissed fair criticism and appear unperturbed by the dubious circumstances of the nomination. In stark contrast, Republicans have upheld their duty to scrutinize and question the circumstances. A healthy democracy thrives on such checks and balances, not on one party simply accepting everything at face value.
Enthusiastically, Democrats predicted a chaotic Republican convention. Instead, they faced their internal incompetence and disorder. Sadly, instead of owning this failure, they continue to project their fallacies onto their political counterparts.
Trump’s path to victory was far from guaranteed, yet his potential success was seen as a threat. As the prospect of a Republican victory clouded the horizon, Democrats began a desperate scramble, resulting in the chaotic situation we see today.
Interestingly, Democrats maintain their denial in the face of clear evidence. They continue to reject any narrative that threatens their constructed reality, regardless of its veracity. This refusal to acknowledge reality does not bode well for their future political endeavors.
This disheartening scenario has left many voters on both sides of the aisle feeling disillusioned and skeptical. As the Democratic party continues to dodge questions and shroud their actions in secrecy, the public’s trust in their ability to govern honestly and transparently is quickly eroding.
In conclusion, Harris’ failure to effectively engage with the media and communicate with the public underlines the worrying lack of transparency in her approach to governance. In their pursuit of retaking the White House, Democrats have demonstrated a willingness to prioritize internal politics over public duty.
The question remains as to whether this brand of politics will resonate with voters, or if it will be rejected in favour of a more transparent, honest administration. Wherever the public’s opinion may land, it is clear that a change in approach is needed from Harris.
Only time will truly reveal the full impact of the Democrats’ strategic decisions, but one thing seems certain: the current approach adopted by Harris and the party at large demonstrates an alarming lack of respect for transparency and the democratic process.
The misdirection echoed by the Democratic party only serves to deepen this divide, underlining how crucial it is that the electorate remain vigilant in demanding transparency and accountability from our representative figures. Let us hope change is on the horizon, for the sake of our democracy.