Kamala Harris – Policy changes

Leave a CommentKamala Harris – Policy changesCommentary, Featured

Harris’s shifts and changing strategies show that her policy stances not based on conviction but on political expediency, aiming to capture the middle ground while still appealing to her base. It’s a shallow, transparent move and only deranged liberal women of a certain age are falling for it.

It’s pretty clear she makes everything up as she goes along. Her attempts to come up with the answer she thinks you want to hear are as obvious as they are pathetic. ‘Would you have a Republican in your Cabinet?” – “Yes!” is preposterous. No progressive would permit such a thing – certainly not the most leftwing Senator ever!

Flip-flopping is her thing though.

  • Fracking: Initially, Harris appeared to align with progressive calls for examining or banning fracking, a stance that would appeal to environmentalists. However, recognizing the economic and political importance of fracking in key states like Pennsylvania, she has since clarified that she does not support a ban. This pivot is seen by some as a calculated move to appeal to a broader electorate, potentially at the expense of her earlier environmental commitments.
  • Immigration: Her stance on ICE and immigration has oscillated. From suggesting a critical examination of ICE’s role, hinting at reforms or even abolition, to now supporting increased resources for ICE under the Biden-Harris administration, her change reflects a strategic adjustment to appeal to a more centrist or conservative voter base, particularly in response to rising border issues.
  • Criminal Justice: Harris’s history as a prosecutor, where she was known for her “tough on crime” approach, contrasts with her later support for policies like defunding the police during her presidential run. This flip-flop is a blatant attempt to align with the progressive wing of her party when convenient, only to revert to more law-and-order rhetoric when facing broader electoral challenges.
  • Economic Policies: Her economic proposals, like price controls on groceries, have been criticized as reminiscent of failed economic policies from authoritarian regimes, suggesting a lack of understanding or disregard for economic fundamentals, possibly to appeal to voters with promises of immediate relief.
  • Climate Change: While she co-sponsored the Green New Deal as a senator, her current approach seems to moderate this stance, possibly to avoid alienating voters in industries dependent on fossil fuels. This moderation could be seen as a pragmatic but also manipulative shift, balancing environmental promises with economic realities.
  • General Political Strategy: Critics argue that Harris’s campaign strategy involves presenting herself as a progressive when addressing her base, yet she moves towards the center or even conservative policies when it suits her broader electoral strategy. This includes her approach to foreign policy, where she’s shown a willingness to be tougher on Israel than Biden, potentially to appeal to different voter demographics.
  • Public Perception and Campaign Tactics: The lack of press conferences and detailed policy discussions has led to accusations of avoiding scrutiny, suggesting a campaign built on image management rather than substance. Her refusal to engage deeply with the press or provide comprehensive policy outlines could be seen as an attempt to control the narrative and avoid being pinned down on controversial issues.
  • Character Over Policy: Congressional Democrats suggesting she focus on character over policy might be an implicit acknowledgment that her policy shifts could be seen as lacking authenticity. This advice could be interpreted as an attempt to divert attention from her policy inconsistencies by emphasizing personal qualities or values.

The Wall

Christmas