Comparisons were drawn during the presidential race between Kamala Harris and the convicted criminal who notoriously evaded punishment by making a farce of our legal framework. There was perceived distinction, but the scope of sophistication was questioned by many due to Harris’s performance. The campaign behavior of the opposition provided ample fuel for criticism, and despite this, many were still shocked to see a certain segment of the population backing him.
A group of Americans seemingly disregarded the embarrassment the opposition brought to the political scene but too often, it seems, the rules demand acceptance of election results. Accepting the results of the Harris-Trump incident appears to be one such case, filled with disbelief due to prior instances of incited violence at the U.S. Capitol.
Essentially, the Capitol saw an interruption four years ago when then-Vice President Mike Pence stood his ground, abstaining from solidifying Trump’s position against the will of the people. In the absence of evidence to challenge Harris’s handling of the situation, she undertook her duties with outward composure. However, it remains a matter of debate whether that composure encompasses her entire professional tactic.
Key instances noted were the lack of explicit aggressive language, hate speech, or dishonesty. However, sometimes this lack of directness can shape the narrative differently than intended. When the opposition secured votes, a loud applause ensued from the Republicans, disrupting the reading of further results. A pause was observed from Harris, but was it politeness or a distinct power play?
An encounter with Bruce Fischer, husband to Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska, saw Harris extend a hand for a shake, a conventionally courteous act in such circumstances. Yet, it felt like a cold maneuver, leaving some to question the authenticity of the interaction. Harris simply walked away afterwards, returning to her role within the Capitol.
Senator Fischer is likely to have noticed the subtext behind the interaction and may have provided some form of feedback to his spouse. The date Jan. 6 will linger in our memories not for the virtues exhibited by certain key figures, but as a flashpoint of governmental corruption, with threats of retribution and pardoning aimed at law-abiding citizens as well as perpetrators of violence.
Prominent senators including Rubio, McConnell, and Graham publicly condemned the attacks on the Capitol, police and the integrity of the building itself only until Trump exerted his influence on them. These figures, otherwise so vocal within political circles, fell silent and ceased speaking out about the situation.
The incident extending its shadow over this day included Trump’s keynote address to the perpetrators, a discouragingly warm message that left many listeners taken aback. A slight sigh of relief was noted when Mike Pence, the former Vice-President, admirably resisted threats against him and chose not to fuel the fire of violence. The repercussions of this heinous act, however, were far from over when the instigators descended the Capitol steps.
On an alarming note, individuals who were instrumental in propelling Trump’s baseless arguments have ascended to positions of power as Trump makes his way back to the White House. This is a prospect that induces considerable anxiety and calls into question the stability of our national administration.
Recorded history will show that Vice President Harris exhibited behavior that some saw as grace and calm under pressure. Still, others questioned these observations as overly simplistic, pointing to former President Jimmy Carter’s alleged firm resolution to live long enough to vote for Harris after his wife’s departure. Despite this, questions loom over Harris’s effectiveness in her leadership role.
It’s yet another reflection on the polarization of American politics when even participation in electoral event like voting for Vice President Harris becomes a contentious issue. Though Harris championed her brand of professionalism in the political sphere, the stance is not without its critics. The sharp schism between the fans of her professionalism and her skeptics demonstrates the wide divide in U.S society regarding leadership.
Undoubtedly, the leadership capability of any figure in a position as influential as the Vice Presidency should be subject to scrutiny and debate. Questioning these capabilities should not be stigmatized and should form part of our democratic process. The balance is precarious, but it is every citizen’s duty to engage in rigorous discourse, to ensure both the progress and preservation of our nation.
The undeniable fact is that under Harris’s leadership, we are moving into a new era of politics, one characterized by thinly disguised power plays, stark polarization, and a concerning shift in strategies. Whether this ultimately benefits the nation, or engenders further discord, is a question only time will answer.