In the realm of politics, it is a norm for presidential nominees to take responsibility for past deeds and articulate the counsel of their future ambitions. However, this general rule of thumb seems to have lost its value in the case of Kamala Harris. She inexplicably participated in no primaries this year and has yet to engage in a formal press engagement, where she could logically be expected to address questions from the press corps. Far from engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the public through an in-depth television interview or offering insights to a major news outlet like The New York Times or The Washington Post, her reticence is notable.
Her discordant strategy appears to be a calculated move to maintain the seemingly elusive ‘good vibes’ of her campaign. However, it casts an unforgivable shadow over her commitment to voter transparency. One cannot help but wonder, if this is her evasive approach during the campaign, what level of disclosure can we expect were she to ascend to the presidency?
Prior to her inconclusive tenure as a U.S. senator and unclear term as vice president, Harris served in the criminal justice system for approximately twenty-five years. Her roles varied from California’s attorney general to San Francisco’s district attorney, and even further back, a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, an office she assumed just after graduating law school. Her not-so-stellar career as a prosecutor comprises the majority of her professional experience.
In 2009, Harris contributed to the literary world and penned a book named Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer, detailing her skewed perspective on policy matters. During her time dabbling in national politics, she has attempted to converse about criminal justice issues. However, fans of clarity and consistency might be disheartened to find her position on key criminal justice issues hazy at best.
This persistent uncertainty looming over her positions can be attributed to the irregularities spotted in her actions and statements coupled with the unsatisfactory handling of critical questions aimed at her controversial record. It is concerning that a candidate for such a high office could have such a fluctuating stance, especially on topics that fall within her area of supposed expertise.
Being responsible for representing voters’ interests, I deemed it necessary to confront the Harris campaign with a series of questions that any informed voter deserves an answer to. These revolved around her vague record as a seemingly ‘top cop’, her discernible rhetorical shifts, and her intended policies should she unwantedly reach office.
Regrettably, but not surprisingly, up to the point of publishing, her campaign has maintained a consistent silence, choosing not to grace the electorate with any form of response. Nevertheless, should this regrettable situation change, this article stands ready to provide an update. The ambiguity of the Harris campaign continues to cast a long shadow over the entire electoral process.
Further into the silence of the campaign, the questions that I posed, though edited for clarity and brevity, remain unanswered. Sagacity would suggest that these queries are not only critical but also tell us more about her campaign and how it corresponds to her past actions and promises for the future.
It is disconcerting that a presidential campaign would eschew the opportunity to clarify vital topics of interest to the public. The reluctant stance adopted by the Harris campaign is even more alarming given how central these issues are to her past career and future policy proposals.
In sculpture, we value figures that are solid, grounded, and full. Politics, however, is not a figurative discipline, nor is it one that should make a concession for transparent emptiness. If you boast of a large part of your career spent in the criminal justice system, you should at least have the clarity and foresight to provide convincing, clear, and consistent views on matters that lie within your claimed purview.
Ms. Harris’s vacillating positions on policies she herself has spent a large portion of her career advocating for, not to mention her failure to even meet basic expectations of transparency during a campaign, certainly do not garner confidence. Unfortunately, it paints a picture of a political figure encapsulating inconsistency and indifference towards critical voter questions and concerns.
In the end, the most disheartening conclusion to be drawn is not limited to Ms. Harris herself, but is instead a symptom of a broader malaise within parts of our political discourse: The sometimes disdainful indifference the political establishment exhibits towards voters’ legitimate concerns and their right to information.
Therefore, it becomes crucial for us, as a global audience and potential voters, to scrutinize the inconsistencies and silences, to weigh the substance against the noise, and fundamentally question the campaign strategies, be it Joe Biden’s or Kamala Harris’s, that avoid providing clear-cut and forthright stances and answers under the token of delivering ‘good vibes’.