Kamala Harris, the Vice Presidential nominee, seems to be putting on a new guise altogether, deviating from her earlier political stances. Evidently, she is pulling back from the radical positions she once brandished during the Democratic primary of 2019. This abrupt shift, many argue, finds its roots in her political maneuvering to dodge the ‘far-left’ label former President Donald Trump had assigned to her.
Remarkably, Harris has chosen to remain silent on her political U-turns. She actively avoids tackling these substantive shifts during her campaign speeches. Moreover, it’s been over a month since she launched her candidacy, and yet, she hasn’t held a single formal press conference. Clearly, openness and transparency aren’t virtues she values.
Pundits in the political sphere suggest that such policy amendments might render her certain advantages; however, they simultaneously pose serious risks. Interestingly, when it comes to energy policy, Harris seems to be moving away from her radical environmentalist stance. She no longer supports a ban on fracking, the process used for extracting oil and natural gas, a striking policy shift that goes unnoticed in her speeches.
Similarly, on immigration, there’s been yet another stark reversal since her previous campaign. Gone are the days when she advocated for reducing illegal border crossings to a civil offense. Conveniently enough, she now supports the Biden Administration’s stricter penalties for illegal crossings. One might wonder how she justifies her sudden adaptation to such punitive measures.
Notably, there is a similar pattern when it comes to healthcare. The Harris campaign no longer regards ‘Medicare for All’, as part of her agenda, contrary to her past enthusiasm for this dictum. As a senator from California, Harris was one of its co-sponsors, even proposing a slightly revised plan during her last presidential campaign.
But this time, Harris’ agenda appears to be trimmed down, with a focus on reducing prescription drug costs and fortifying the existing healthcare fortifications under the Affordable Care Act. Isn’t it surprising how her once-radical viewpoint has been conveniently phased out, giving way to a version that seems more politically expedient?
The situation is no different when it comes to gun policy. Harris, who was once in favor of a compulsory firearm buyback scheme for attack-type weapons, is now conspicuously silent on the subject. However, her campaign vaguely continues to back other types of reforms in this sector.
“We will pass all-inclusive background verifications, red flag laws, and a prohibition on assault weapons,” was Harris’s pledge during an assembly in Pennsylvania, a crucial battlefield in American politics. Her campaign has insisted that her current stances stem from ‘three years of efficacious governance’ and demonstrate her ‘pragmatic approach, focusing on solutions that make sense for progress’s sake’ than anything else.
A recent CBS News – YouGov poll suggests that the jury is still out on the public’s perception of Harris. Over a third of the registered voters are still unsure about what Harris represents — a statistic that hardly flatters her political standing. The voters seem divided over whether her policies align with those of President Biden.
One cannot overlook the noteworthy fact that such policy flip-flops are not exclusive to Harris. Donald Trump, too, evolved his standpoint on critical matters, specifically abortion rights, over his political career. Before his entry into politics, he was ‘pro-choice’. However, during his political tenure, he not only endorsed national abortion restrictions but also declared abortion as an issue for individual states to decide.
In short, the public swirling in confusion; the politician’s wand constantly waving makes it difficult to pin down their current position. And Harris doesn’t seem any different from this trend. Her constant dabbles in policy switch only raise more questions and create a cloud of ambiguity.
The political narrative she had once peddled is significantly different today. This raises concerns about the true nature of her governance style — whether it’s pragmatic and grounded in a sense of commonsense or is simply a matter of strategic political convenience.
Ultimately, it’s not about the policy shifts themselves — politicians evolve, and so do their stances. But the silence and denial about these reversals from the Harris campaign are what worry observers — her inability to articulate these changes poses more questions than answers.
Thus, Harris leaves the impression of a politician struggling to find a firm footing on issues of national importance. Rather than endorsing a steady set of convictions, she seems to crumble under the pressure of political convenience, leaving voters to wonder about her mettle.
With fluctuating positions, and a campaign that reeks of strategic omissions, Harris seems incredibly distant from the leader she portrays herself to be. The pitfalls of her inconsistent stances and the ambiguity surrounding her policy preferences may well be her biggest obstacles in winning the public’s trust.
In the end, her chameleon-like attitude towards policy commitment paints a picture of a politician who suits herself to the current political winds, rather than subscribing to a steady ideological course. A leader’s true character is defined not by their current political convenience but by their commitment to values and principles. Something at which Harris appears to falter.