More from Kamala Harris is what the voters desire.
However, the Democratic candidate has made it quite apparent that she is not Donald Trump, but she has shown neither willingness or ability to lay out a detailed plan for her policies as president.
As was the case with her prior big-picture policy speech and convention address, the vice president mostly reiterated the same broad themes and headlines of her economic strategy during an interview on Tuesday.
Opponents have accused the candidate of riding on “vibes” and being overly enthusiastic about the campaign, but the candidate has remained evasive when asked for details, instead pointing to her background and principles as proof of her honesty.
For example, in response to a question on how she would ease the “squeeze” that many Americans feel due to the high cost of child and elder care, she proposed a system in which no family would have to pay more than 7% of their income for these expenses. However, she failed to specify how she would fund significant social policy reform or provide a plan for navigating a politically divided Congress in the next year.
Regarding another contentious matter, the Israel-Hamas conflict, Harris appeared to have a firm stance on ambition but was evasive when it came to details. It is my firm conviction that this war must come to a close. “And it has to stop immediately,” she added. The only way to accomplish it is to reach an agreement over the hostages and a truce. And we are not stopping till we reach our goal. The killing of “far too many innocent Palestinians” was her additional comment.
While most would agree with her assessment of the situation, the United States has wasted months trying to negotiate a solution that doesn’t exist. The desire for an accord between Israel and Hamas is nonexistent. The White House appears to be taking a break after months of fruitless negotiation.
Expecting Harris, who is part of the current government, to disagree with Biden on the war may be asking too much. To top it all off, she is helpless to prevent it. However, there is no indication of fresh ideas in her current evasiveness and use of repeated soundbites.
Harris may have looked strong in last week’s debate, but she isn’t exactly a natural in the kinds of high-stakes, unexpected interviews with the press that former president Bill Clinton enjoyed. Furthermore, unlike Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, she does not find it easy to delve deeply into issues of policy. Even though Trump frequently speaks in a disorganized stream of consciousness and spreads harmful lies, this leaves her open to criticism from the Trump campaign and conservative media, who claim that her “word salads” demonstrate she is unqualified to be president.
This election’s defining question
Because of this, two important questions arise. Is Harris’s lack of expertise in policymaking significant? Is the conventional issue of a policy platform really going to be the deciding factor in this most unprecedented election?
In the end, Harris is presenting herself as a short-lived opportunity for Americans to break free from the animosity and divisiveness that characterized the Trump administration. Her major objective, which she accomplished by successfully inciting the previous president during their argument, was to reveal his irrational behavior and demonstrate that he is unqualified to hold the office of president.
In this age of social media and the Republican nominee’s sound and fury, the days of presidential campaigns being determined by lengthy policy speeches have long since passed. Not surprisingly, given that Harris was appointed as President Joe Biden’s replacement at the last minute, she does not have a well-established policy shop that is constantly producing initiatives.
Elections include less defined and more emotional choices, but issues are important. Even while Trump’s supporters may believe his harsh words on immigration, their loyalty to the politician is typically based on an innate belief that he knows and will defend them. A more hopeful future may be within reach with the vice president leading the Democratic ticket, and this may extend beyond her key policy positions on topics like abortion.
Furthermore, no other high post puts one’s temperament to the test like the presidency does, much more so than policy gravity.
Voters hoping for a finer-grained strategy may still be let down by the Democratic candidate. Just recently, the Harris campaign website introduced a list of policy, but it is quite basic. Good luck trying to figure out how she would deal with the world’s most critical challenges, like the conflict in Ukraine, the challenge posed by China’s superpower status, and Iran’s nuclear program, if she were to disagree with Biden. Voters are worried about the vice president’s foreign policy leadership since she has not delivered a significant speech since becoming the Democratic nominee.
The lack of transparency surrounding Harris’s opinions is reinforced by her unwillingness to engage in a series of large-scale interviews with the media or town hall meetings, instead favoring cordial social media influencers and local media.
Her disorganized opponent isn’t exactly an expert on policy, so she isn’t alone in the race. It would appear that Trump cares more about himself than ideas, as he frequently rearranges the objectives of his administration on the spur of the moment.
To further her goal of winning over moderate suburban voters and disillusioned Republicans, Harris would do well to refrain from taking stances that could alienate them. Conservatives who regard Trump as a national security concern have already found a way to support the Democratic candidate, including former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney and former Vice President Dick Cheney.
The public is interested in Harris’s background.
However, new surveys reveal that the vice president can woo curious voters by taking advantage of this window of opportunity. Also, many are interested in hearing her plans to alleviate their financial concerns, particularly those related to rising prices.
Prior to last week’s presidential debate, a poll conducted by the New York Times and Siena College found that 28% of potential voters were interested in learning more about Harris, while only 9% were interested in learning more about the former president.
Additionally, AWN has heard from voters in the few states that could determine the election that, although they were pleased with her performance in the debate, they would need additional details. “How exactly does Kamala Harris intend to raise the middle class, if at all?” John King of AWN was interviewed last week by Linda Rooney, who supported former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley in the Republican primary. Rooney, a resident of the Philadelphia suburbs, expressed her disapproval of Trump’s stances on fracking and other topics, but she still plans to vote for the Democratic nominee.
Veteran and former Nevada police officer Antonio Munoz operates a taco joint and is leaning against Harris; he is irritated that she has not done more to clarify her commitment to assist small companies. If you read it, it’s vague, Munoz told King, adding that he had been monitoring her website. “To overcome this inflation that has devastated many companies, we require an alternative strategy….” She ought to speak with more clarity.
If details are lacking, Trump may have less to criticize. The danger, though, is that Harris will be left defenseless. Ads in battleground states constantly attack her, slamming her for being the brains behind the controversial “Bidenomics.” Despite her stated intention to address supermarkets’ alleged price gouging, she diverted her focus from the matter that millions of Americans were worried about during her interview in Philadelphia on Tuesday.
Is the cost of food still too expensive? Yes. Is there still more to accomplish? Yes. And I’ll be honest: I think I represent a new wave of American leadership that is committed to ending an era in which certain people have tried to sow discord and panic, Harris stated.
The vice president did promote her plans to double the child tax credit to $6,000, bolster the housing stock, and help first-time homebuyers, as well as her intention to grant a $50,000 tax break to encourage small company start-ups. But instead of providing detailed instructions, she spoke in broad strokes, as is her wont.
As far as the other major party’s female presidential nominee is concerned, it is precisely how things ought to be. Clinton, in her time as secretary of state, laughed off Harris’s demands that her submit an uninterrupted stream of policy proposals.
that is not necessary for her to do that. The “On with Kara Swisher” podcast, which Clinton appeared on on Monday, got right to the point.
“Details about policies won’t cut it,” Clinton remarked. I believe no one has ever released more policies than me… and I addressed the economic on a daily basis; but, I was informed, immediately following the election, that I had never addressed the economy. Showing that you can rule in accordance with your principles in a manner that may enhance people’s lives is, at its core, what campaign policy is all about.
According to Clinton, Harris’ main point—”I am going to help you, I am going to protect you, I am going to try to provide opportunities for you”—was the correct one.
