Kamala Harris’ sudden campaign start for the US presidential elections has not been easy. Since the 27th of June, with the debacle of the Biden/Trump debate, Harris has been slowly coming into play as a presidential nominee. On September 10th, she even debated Donald Trump on ABC News. Though the start has been rocky, Kamala Harris has been on the political scene for quite some time. She is the 49th US vice-president, but she has also been a US senator, and as she keeps reminding us, attorney general of California. Those long years under the public eye have allowed for continuous criticism, on all sides of the spectrum. Yet, Kamala Harris has a high and growing level of support. In the past two months, she has swung many votes in her favor, even seeing the emergence of the Republicans for Harris movement. The question is then- how can those two-sided political criticism come hand-in-hand with a potentially successful presidential campaign?
The main criticisms that Harris receives are twofold. On one side, she is a raging communist while on the other she is a neoliberal in disguise. To support the former, Trump and his supporters capitalize on existing fears of common properties, Marxist affiliation, and the threat of the downfall of the economy. Those claims are even backed up with existing AI-generated/modified pictures and videos of the vice president. The latter critics focus on the lack of foundation of her policies, as well as the fact that she is doing the bare minimum in terms of progressive actions. Even more, on both sides, the vice president is condemned for her constant policy change, especially over the last presidential term.
For instance, she went from stating that she would ban fracking entirely to denying that she was ever against it. During the debate, she avoided this specific topic, rather stating that “we (the US) have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so that we reduce our reliance on foreign oil”. As the ABC news reporter Linsey Davis pointed out, policy changes are recurrent in the vice president’s campaign. Harris’ gun stances and border control policies for example, have also shifted towards a ‘middle point’. She went back on mandatory government buyback of assault weapons and aimed for the reinforcement of border control, rather than their previously stated decriminalization. Such policy changes are both one of the main criticisms and also reasons as to why the nominee is where she is today. For Trump and his supporters, her political changes are just another one of the reasons why she is a ‘crazy woman’, unfit to be in office. It is also fear-inducing for a lot of voters, as the reputation now undermines the trustworthiness of the candidate. However, as this article will show, it has allowed her to gain votes and have a potentially successful presidential campaign.
To begin with, these changes do not apply to all of her policies. Kamala Harris emphasized, especially during the debate, that her core values remain unchanged, even if some of her actual policies have evolved. In that sense, she is saying that the essence of policy is still intact. This includes among others her fight for abortion rights, and her unmoving support for Ukraine, and Israel, for better or for worse. Furthermore, for the points that have changed, this could be seen as a check back to reality after four years as vice president. Could it be possible that what she aimed to do is just not realistic with the current stance and means of the US administration?
Additionally, it could also be, and most likely is, a political strategy to accommodate the middle-of-the-spectrum electorate. Politically undecisive Americans have been shown to react positively to conservative values, of family for example. In Harris’ case, framing democratic policies more conservatively might be the key to a seat in the Oval Office. This could in part explain the wave of Republicans for Harris. Since the democratic national convention, back in August, this movement has been the talk of the town. Numerous Trump apostates, including members of his administration, have turned towards the democrat candidate as the solution for the country. Those changes are radical and could be influenced by the new framing of her policies. The left-leaning agenda of the candidate could then be welcomed well within her party, as well as by external voters that have been seduced by this new presentation of it.
Finally, with this approach, she might also play better on important questions for single-issue voters. The US presidential electorate has a high number of single-issue voters, i.e. people deciding to cast their votes on someone due to aligning with one unique considered crucial point, rather than the overall program. In 2024, the most important issues are abortion rights, constitutional rights, economic power, and immigration policies. This plays both in favor and as an obstacle for Harris. Single issues voters gave Donald Trump leverage through specific issues, especially in conservative areas. However, the new framing of economics and immigration might be giving a leg up for the Democratic candidate.
So, is Kamala Harris compromising all her values, and completely changing her promises? Probably not. After all, the game of politics is to swing voters your way, especially during an election period. The US political culture might make it more difficult for European political enthusiasts to understand the thought process of the electorate, in voting one candidate or another. From what our US correspondents have seen, the majority of the voters aim to choose the “lesser of the two evils”, concentrating on the personal impact that the president would have on them. Hopefully, this article has explained a bit more some of the numerous aspects that come into play when casting their vote. Importantly, this piece does not mean to undermine the nominee nor her political strategy, but rather to highlight the difficult and complex buildup of the elections, all the way to their results.
Comments