Kamala Harris and the high cost of empty suits

If you had told me Kamala Harris would be a “change” candidate, until a few months ago, I may have believed you.

In her primary run in 2019, Harris came out in support of healthcare-for-all and a corporate tax rate of 35% (up from 21%). She sponsored a bill that would mandate automakers to build only electric (or hydrogen powered) cars by 2035. In a CNN town hall, she said “There's no question I am in favour of banning fracking.” She said she would like to ban private prisons. She supported gender transition surgeries for prison inmates and detained migrants. This was not a candidate operating in the political centre.

According to Pew Research, 60% of Americans believe that the current VP stands up for what she believes in. But her adaptability, and ideological movements away from the polices she supported in 2019, call this into question.

Now, she says she won’t pursue a single payer healthcare model, and has backed down to match Biden’s proposal of a 28% corporate tax rate. She has now labeled herself a “capitalist” and a “gun owner.” She has reversed her views on fracking and electric vehicle mandates. She won’t commit to ending private prisons. And there has been no mention of gender transition surgeries for inmates.  

The DNC party apparatus has undoubtably influenced her to move towards the political centre. Candidates on the Democratic side who try to approach economic or healthcare reform are always placed on the fringe. Just look to Bernie Sander’s run for the nomination in 2020. The progressive Vermont Senator was successful in early primaries, and when it looked like he had a true shot at the nomination, the party maneuvered to remove candidates from the running, and select Joe Biden.

Most Republicans also believe these policies exist on the fringe. How many days did it take for Harris’ opponent to brand her “Comrade Kamala” after she won the nomination?

And when she is not changing positions she held only a few years ago, Harris is presenting polices which are light on details. In the first and last debate ahead of the election, when asked the question “do you think Americans are better off than they were four years ago,” she had a meandering answer about growing up as a “middle class kid,” building an “opportunity economy,” and “lifting up the middle class.” I’m none the wiser, personally.

The DNC did not oust a sitting President from the nomination for nothing. Their candidate will do as they say, or they risk losing to Donald Trump. But when you just follow the party line, and the party happens to be propped up by big money (as both parties are in the US), no substantial change will ever emerge. Harris is insistent that her values are the same as they once were, but her policies have changed. But I see no evidence of the values she had in 2019 in today’s proposals. In 2024, I only see one value: winning at any cost.

This kind of cynical politics also makes it extraordinarily easy for opponents to go on the attack. By no mean is Harris a communist, and by no means does she deserve the label “Comrade Kamala,” but can you think of an alternative label that rebuts it? This process is difficult because voters have no idea what she stands for.

When you look to Donald Trump, you see anything but an empty suit, for better or worse. The only thing people hate more than a bad candidate is a nothing candidate. Just another unrelatable, boring, product of a party machine who has abandoned her principles for more digestible policies. You do not always have to run to the centre. Sometimes, you might be able to convince voters that change would be a good thing. This would be a more effective strategy moving forward.