Kamala Harris, now at the forefront of the Democratic Party as their 2024 presidential candidate, is attempting to paint a vision of progress and reform. Her campaign rhetoric is filled with promises of unity, economic prosperity, and justice for all. Yet, beneath the polished speeches and carefully crafted policy proposals lies a troubling record. Harris has made a career out of presenting herself as a champion of the people, yet her actions in public office often tell a different story. It’s time to peel back the layers of her platform and expose the glaring inconsistencies between her current promises and her past performance.
The Border Crisis: A Failure in Leadership
Let’s start at the border, a topic Harris has tried to dance around for much of her vice-presidential tenure. Appointed as the Biden administration’s point person on the border crisis, Harris was tasked with addressing the root causes of migration and bringing some semblance of order to a situation that has spiraled out of control. What did we see instead? An unprecedented surge in illegal crossings, record numbers of unaccompanied minors, and makeshift detention centers that even her fellow Democrats decried as inhumane.
Despite her supposed commitment to finding solutions, Harris avoided a visit to the border for months, only relenting under intense political pressure. When she finally did make a trip, it was clear it was more about optics than substance. Her failure to enact any meaningful policy to stem the crisis exposes a lack of understanding and leadership on one of the country’s most pressing issues. She has talked at length about addressing “root causes” like poverty and violence in Central America, but this rhetoric rings hollow when it comes to immediate action. The reality on the ground remains unchanged, leaving border communities—and the migrants themselves—without the support they were promised.
A Hollow Record on Criminal Justice Reform
Kamala Harris presents herself as a reformer, a crusader for criminal justice who will root out systemic inequities. Yet, her track record as District Attorney of San Francisco and later as California’s Attorney General paints a starkly different picture. Harris presided over an office that aggressively pursued low-level drug offenses, contributing to the mass incarceration problem she now claims to want to dismantle. This hardline approach disproportionately affected minority communities, the very groups she now vows to protect.
As Attorney General, Harris had the power to address numerous injustices within California’s criminal justice system but often chose not to. When a federal judge ordered the state to reduce its prison population due to overcrowded conditions that violated inmates’ constitutional rights, Harris’s office argued against early release, claiming it would deplete the state’s labor pool. In other words, Harris’s office effectively defended the use of prison labor—an unsettling stance for someone who now decries the prison-industrial complex.
Her platform today calls for sweeping criminal justice reforms, yet where was this urgency during her time in office? How can she reconcile her current stance with her past actions that upheld and even exacerbated the very problems she now criticizes? The reality is, her platform is built on a facade that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It’s one thing to talk about reform; it’s another to have the courage to enact it when you hold the power.
Economic Policy: A Champion for the People or Big Government Advocate?
On the economic front, Harris presents herself as a champion for the middle class and the working poor. However, her policy prescriptions rely heavily on the same big government approach that has repeatedly failed to deliver real, sustainable growth. During her vice-presidential tenure, she advocated for an expansive COVID-19 relief package that funneled trillions into the economy, contributing to runaway inflation and ballooning national debt. While direct relief was necessary, the haphazard rollout and lack of targeted measures ended up hurting small businesses more than helping them, with many still struggling to recover in the aftermath.
Her proposed economic platform for her presidential run is more of the same—tax hikes, increased regulation, and more federal oversight. She calls for higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, positioning it as a step toward economic justice. But such policies often result in reduced investments, job cuts, and a sluggish economy, disproportionately affecting the very people she claims to champion. Harris talks about leveling the playing field, but her methods risk stifling the innovation and growth that drive economic opportunity.
Moreover, her support for the Green New Deal, with its astronomical price tag, threatens to upend industries and eliminate millions of jobs. The promise of a “just transition” for displaced workers is vague at best, with little consideration for the economic turmoil such policies would bring to working families. It’s a textbook case of overpromising and underdelivering, with big government stepping in to dictate the market rather than empowering individuals to thrive.
Pushing Big Government Policies: A Pattern of Overreach
Harris’s record reveals a pattern of advocating for policies that expand government control at the expense of individual freedom and market autonomy. From her support for Medicare for All—which would effectively dismantle the private insurance market—to her push for stricter gun control measures, Harris’s vision for America is one where the government has an increasingly pervasive role in everyday life.
Take her stance on healthcare. While she’s dialed back from her initial support for a full single-payer system, her current platform still advocates for a public option, which critics argue is a stepping stone to a government takeover of healthcare. Such an approach risks reducing the quality of care and eliminating choice for millions of Americans. The irony here is that, as someone who has benefited from a system that allows for choice and flexibility, Harris is now advocating for policies that would restrict those very freedoms for others.
Then there’s her track record on civil liberties. Harris has been a vocal advocate for expanded government surveillance powers, even co-sponsoring legislation that would give the federal government broad authority to monitor and collect data on citizens. This is particularly alarming given her platform’s emphasis on justice and equality. How can one champion civil rights while simultaneously pushing for measures that infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy?
A Platform Built on Sand
Kamala Harris’s presidential platform is a carefully constructed narrative designed to appeal to a wide swath of voters. But when put under the microscope, it becomes evident that her promises are built on shaky ground. Her record reveals a politician who has often prioritized power and optics over genuine reform. She talks about unity while her policies threaten division. She promises economic prosperity while advocating for regulations that could cripple growth. She speaks of justice while her actions have, time and again, favored the status quo.
In a political landscape where authenticity and action should matter more than polished speeches, Kamala Harris’s platform seems more like a political performance than a genuine roadmap for America’s future. Voters deserve more than recycled rhetoric and half-baked solutions. They deserve a leader whose words are matched by their deeds—a test Harris has repeatedly failed.
Add comment
Comments