Witnessing the progression of Kamala Harris in her political journey has revealed an irrefutable pattern. Hence it’s no surprise to hear her statement on a CNN interview, ‘My values have not changed.’ As a conservative who has never found consensus with her political ideology, I can assert this one sentiment firmly aligns with my observations. Drawn fiercely to a certain set of principles, this vice president’s ambition for presidentship seems unwavering.
Her stalwart devotion to issues she espouses has mapped her political trajectory so far. However, a critical quandary emerging from this interview persists – will this cohesion of ideals persist near the election? Especially if these same ‘values’ necessitate forming an unsolicited friendship with a border wall, give rise to a hesitancy to forfeit our private health insurance, generate a wavering stance on the requisite of electric cars, and a sudden opposition to a fracking ban?
There’s an atmosphere of incredulity looming around the sincerity of her change in stance. It seems her words, however eloquent, fail to evoke trust. The interview, unfortunately delayed for reasons beyond discernment, provides an opportunity to bring into light her standing along with running mate Tim Walz.
Walz’s presence in the interview instills doubts in critics about Harris’s capacity to withstand a direct one-on-one, even with a network notoriously biased towards her. Better management of such prevalent perceptions would have seen her indulge in a intimate conversation with CNN reporter Dana Bash, devoid of an emotionally supportive accomplice.
As the tide turned and Bash confronted Walz on his disputable past, it only added to the chaos. From disputable claims of having served in a war zone, to false mentions of encounters with in-vitro fertilization, and lies about a DUI arrest during the 2006 congressional campaign, the conversation sparked some vital questions. The quintessential one being, ‘Can the voters trust you?’
While the question carried significant weight, the answers were equally impactful, lining up with Harris’s known struggles — a maze of redundancies and convoluted sentence structures. Walz’s proud reference to his unblemished military service, his evasion by discussing infertility issues faced by families, and his insistence on ‘owning up to his mistakes,’ only made his truth seem farther from reality.
One would have appreciated a semblance of that relentless questioning when it came to scrutinizing the ambiguous responses made by Harris. She slipped by her accountability on border issues to those ever elusive ‘root causes,’ brazenly claimed easing inflation under her and President Joe Biden’s administration, and failed to express regret for the long-standing deception of convincing the nation of Biden’s sound cognitive ability.
These instances are ripe for ridicules, but they mostly originate from factions unlikely to cast their votes in her favor. The true measure of the impact of this interview lies in the reactions from those who admire her or considering her as a choice in November.
But does it undermine the loyalists’ support? Hardly so. Does it alter the mind of a potential voter? A negligible chance at best. But does it prove as a missed chance to address some of the concerns that have shadowed ever since she became the Democratic nominee? Definitely.
Rather than giving vague responses, Harris could have justified her current policy swings using meaningful explanations. She had an opportunity to emulate a JD Vance-like turnaround in sentiments about Donald Trump, mirroring how ordinary individuals learn, adapt and reassess their mistaken beliefs.
She could have, for instance, decisively declared her intention to help Israel in its conflict against malevolent forces. But this seems contradictory to her ‘unchanged values’ that involve deprioritizing Israel to cater Hamas-leaning elements within her party.
Owing to time constraints, or perhaps deliberate omission, discussion on issues like Ukraine, crime, and her zealous advocacy for children’s gender transitions were notably absent from this interview. Nonetheless, these matters and numerous others must be addressed shortly.
The upcoming ABC presidential debate scheduled for September 10 will fortify yet another occasion where she’ll have a supportive network on her side. However, in contrast to this CNN interview, she will counter her opponent instead of her running mate. If moderators shirk their duties, Donald Trump is unlikely to extend the same courtesy. Based on the lackluster performance in a friendly environment, there’s little cause to anticipate a successful night for her.