Vice President Kamala Harris wants us to believe she’s transparent, that she’s attempting to fix one major critique from her critics: her systemic evasion of the media. Recently, she featured on a slew of programs and podcasts, all within a week. However, this sudden change in behavior raises some eyebrows, particularly since we know as little about her plans, her potential divergence from President Biden, and her policies as we did before.
Indeed, she’s created a mirage of activity, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. Harris is sitting down for interviews, she’s chatting away, yet we’re still in the dark about her vision for the administration. Her constant harping on being a part of the Biden-Harris administration’s legacy makes one wonder if she has any independent ideas at all.
As a voter, it’s frustrating to have no insight into the type of president she’ll be, or if she’ll even be any different from the previous four years. It raises the question – what exactly is Harris’s strategic approach? Is it to just not upset the apple cart and maintain status quo to ensure her eventual ascendency?
Harris made herself scarce in the media landscape during the initial days of her vice presidency. Although this ‘do no harm’ approach might have made sense then, it’s less effective now, weeks before the election. We’re entitled to ask if this strategy of trying to win by default is going to work this time.
But Harris isn’t alone in her vagueness. Other candidates have been similarly unclear about their policies. Having to toe the line between establishing an identity separate from Biden’s while not alienating his supporters puts her in a tough universe. A universe where she, unsurprisingly, completely fails to balance both ends.
Multiple interviews in the past week have seen Harris cornered, asked about her positions, her policies, how she plans to tackle key problems faced by our nation, notably the economy and immigration. And Harris, as vague as ever, spectacularly failed to provide any insights.
Take one instance where a show’s host asked her if the Americans blaming the Biden-Harris administration for the soaring grocery prices were ‘wrong’. She spoke of a ‘thriving’ macroeconomic landscape and then dodged the real issue, simply stating that prices were high and she had a ‘plan’. But what that plan is, we’re still waiting to hear.
Not surprisingly, Harris was equally non-committal about her economic agenda. When quizzed about funding, she gave no indication that she had any comprehensive plan in place. Discussions on immigration were treated similarly, with Harris only providing a vague statement about addressing the issue.
Interestingly, she seemed most assertive when discussing Ukraine. Drawing a stark contrast from other candidates, she firmly refused the idea of negotiations with certain countries sans Ukraine’s presence at the roundtable. But when asked if there was anything she’d have done differently than Biden, she drew a blank.
To claim that she wouldn’t have done anything differently than Biden may show loyalty, but it hardly inspires confidence in dissatisfied voters who are seeking change. Harris seems more interested in being well-liked than in creating a discernible political identity.
In terms of more focused interviews, she reverts to the same tactics she used during her early days in the campaign. She aims to make the race a popularity contest and seems pleased with some limited success. According to a recent poll, Harris is perceived as representing change despite being the incumbent VP and aligning closely with Biden.
Given our polarized political environment and what’s shaping up to be a neck-and-neck election, her ‘do no harm’ strategy might just help her squeak out a win. But we can’t overlook the very real possibility that voters may focus on the candidate’s capacity to address critical issues in the final days of the election.
Ultimately, despite her media blitz, voters remain in the dark about Harris’ plans – economy, immigration, foreign policy, you name it. Unhappy voters need to know how things will be different in the next four years, and Harris provides no answers. This avoidance strategy is wearing thin, and change is demanded by the people.