Kamala Harris, in an adrenaline-fueled attempt to appear relatable, reminded everyone on Wednesday of her purported stint at McDonald’s during her college days. She used this star-studded moment to take a jibe at Donald Trump, her presidential adversary, for expressing doubts over her supposed burger-flipping past.
Trump, who probably only wished to check the validity of her claims, has been unjustly portrayed as launching baseless accusations against Harris. This week, he humorously suggested that he might spend half an hour flipping fries at the fast food giant, probably accomplishing more in that duration than what Harris might have during her alleged tenure there.
The Vice President chose to respond to Trump’s comments, but in a fashion that detracts from the real issue at hand. Instead of providing substantial proof to validate her claims, she was spotted participating in nostalgic fast-food jargon.
Asked if she had ever served ‘two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese’,— harking back to the antiquated Big Mac tune — Harris, instead of giving a direct response, chose to make light of the situation. The ensuing laughter looked more like a deflection rather than an answer.
She proudly declared, sporting an uncharacteristic gravity on her face, that she ‘purportedly worked the fryer.’ The flippancy of this statement, however, is hard to ignore, given the lack of supporting evidence.
Harris attempted to justify this purported reflection of her past as an attempt to show solidarity with the ordinary people struggling to make ends meet while working at McDonald’s — a classic tactic to win over the masses. According to her, she was just a student back then, trying to scrape by while managing her studies.
But one must ponder why Harris ascended to talking about this unlikely work experience only when stakes ran high at the political playground. It strangely seems as if she’s leveraging these unverified claims for a duel of perspective with her political rivals.
The Vice President maintains that the ‘difference’ between her and her opponent stems from their differing perspectives on the ‘needs of the American people’. This statement could, however, be interpreted differently: It might be a clever way to circumvent the issue and redirect the conversation back to political posturing.
One might question if Harris, by reflecting on this personal anecdote of minimum wage employment, is sincerely advocating for the American people or whether it’s just another political maneuver. Is she trying to exhibit true empathy or simply manipulate public perception to outmaneuver her opposition?
While it’s not entirely clear why such an important dialogue devolved into a back-and-forth concerning her past McDonald’s employment, it’s evident that Kamala has just tried to deflect attention while sneakily attempting to earn some credibility.
Oftentimes, politicians resort to such tactics to establish a relatability factor with a wider audience. Whether Harris’ stint at fast food joints is true or not, it has undoubtedly served as an effective distraction from more pertinent issues surrounding the present campaign.
If Harris truly wants to make a difference, as she often claims, it might be more convicing to see her prioritizing matter of substance over publicity stunts. Nevertheless, the spectacle around this McDonald’s debate certainly managed to steer attention away from the political battlefield and onto the kitchen countertop.
In summation, the moral of the story might be this — rather than flipping burgers, politicians would better serve the public by focusing on flipping policies that ultimately benefit the American people.