In the conventional practice of job interviews, Joe Donahue, an indecisive Republican voter, asked Vice President Kamala Harris about her flaws. Harris responded to the standard question in a predictable manner, claiming her penchant for perfection may be perceived as a shortcoming. Her response also revealed her appreciation for surrounding herself with a team of intelligent individuals, a depiction that seems more reflective of self-praise rather than admitting a genuine weakness.
Harris held a protracted Q&A session with the undecided voters that, while void of blatant blunders, left much to be desired. She failed to use the platform to strain out any meaningful insights about her potential future policies. Instead, she chose to repeatedly highlight the alleged unfitness and threats her opponent, Donald Trump, posed to the American democratic system.
Evidently, less than a fortnight shy of Election Day, Harris missed multiple opportunities to leave an indelible mark on voters’ minds. A void was left regarding fully drafted policies she intended to introduce, if elected, and how exactly she would implement these into the machinery of the government.
In what was a refreshingly brief presidential campaign, the vice president found herself caught between the struggle to introduce herself to a voting audience unfamiliar with her, and her zeal to focus on her opponent. It seemed that the undecided voters present, encompassing a spectrum from her political left to right, weren’t particularly keyed up over Trump’s allegedly intensifying authoritarian rhetoric.
Contrarily, the attendees were more intrigued about tasks hitting closer to home. Carol Nackenoff, a political scientist, wanted to know Harris’s primary policy goal for Congress. Jaxon Weiss, a registered Republican student, questioned the taxpayers’ liability in integrating the influx of migrants into American society. Pam Thistle, a real estate agent, showed interest in the specifics of her plans to impose taxes on the wealthy.
These discussions could have led to an in-depth analysis of Harris’s campaign strategies. For instance, her campaign proposed a controversial wealth tax requiring taxpayers with net assets above $100 million to pay a fixed tax on the increasing value of assets, regardless of whether they sold them.
However, instead of providing a straight answer, Ms. Harris opted to detail her plans to extend the child tax credit for middle-class Americans and underscored her commitment not to raise taxes for anyone earning below $400,000 a year. Further, she suggested that she aimed to ensure the ultra-rich pay their ‘fair share’. But the specifics remained elusive in her explanations.
A seasoned expert who was present commented on the glaring omissions in her answers, stating that the voters would likely be left discontent. It’s unclear if a traditional primary season would have resulted in more satisfactory or comprehensive responses.
Squarely put, the campaign season was inadequate for the voters to receive satisfactory answers, but it appears it was not brief enough to excuse the inadequacies. The vice president had the opportunity to respond to the voters’ questions, but suitable resolutions failed to materialize consistently.
A former Democratic strategist, who had previously advised a successful senatorial campaign, believed that Harris’s mission was nearly impossible: to run a presidential campaign in 100 days against an opponent who is a household name. Nevertheless, she commended Harris’s efforts during the campaign.
The vice president faced challenges on multiple fronts. She received pressure from the left wing to halt Israel from using U.S.-supplied armament on Palestinians and to expand the Supreme Court. She was pushed from the right on issues like immigration, border enforcement, and consumer prices.
In response to these complex questions, Harris simply stated she worked hard to stay well-informed. This was hardly reassuring, considering her struggles with even the simplest questions. For instance, a student asked her to share the proudest moment in her political career.
Given her long and decorated career, several significant moments should’ve effortlessly come to mind. Be it winning the vice presidency in 2020 at what she touted as a critical moment for American democracy, her vote to impeach Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors as a senator, casting the decisive vote to secure multiple achievements for President Biden, or her opposition to Trump’s Supreme Court nominations.
But her response was forgettable and far from what one would expect from a presidential candidate in a neck-and-neck race. Highlighting her tenure as California’s attorney general, she said she was proud of establishing a new bureau of children’s justice. She, however, stopped short of providing details about the bureau’s accomplishments.
Despite the incomplete response, she optimistically asserted, ‘I know we can make a difference, I really do’, thus leaving more questions than answers as voters learned little of substance about Harris’s political accomplishments or future intentions.