It is perhaps the most crucial question Americans must ponder when evaluating the relative merits of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris: Can the vice president effectively separate herself from the record of her own administration?
On the surface, the question sounds absurd. But that is exactly why it must be asked – because it ought to be a primary consideration for every voter. What she has done and said since being elected VP is all the nation really knows about her beyond her previous identities as a “progressive prosecutor,” a senator ranked in 2019 as the most left-wing in the entire body, and a presidential candidate who never got traction. And big media is doing its best to focus on her promises for the future rather than her far-left positions in the past and her actual record under Biden. Since her elevation to the top of the presidential ticket two months ago, and especially after a surprisingly strong debate performance, the cheerleading media has been radically incurious about Harris’ role in her own administration and whether she is pleased or even proud to own the entire Biden record.
Harris has wisely and predictably tried to strike out on her own and somehow convince Americans that she had little or nothing to do with millions of illegal immigrants flowing over the border and overrunning cities across the land. But she was the border czar – full stop. Let’s repeat that so the voters know exactly who was in charge of the southern border. Kamala Harris was responsible for enforcing the policies that allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour across the border, some of whom have committed violent crimes including murder, and all of whom have placed a near-unbearable strain on communities and municipal budgets already stretched thin.
Kamala Harris and Separation Anxiety
Harris faces the opposite challenge from George H.W. Bush in 1988, when the vice-president under Ronald Reagan simply drafted off the success of his administration, and while insisting he wanted a “kinder, gentler nation,” he hardly tried to distance himself from Reagan – quite the opposite. Likewise, in 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon tied himself to the peace and prosperity of his two-term President Dwight Eisenhower. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey felt compelled to support the Vietnam War that had forced President Lyndon Johnson out of the race. Bush won big, while Nixon and Humphrey lost narrowly.
Humphrey’s loss was to the “new” Nixon, who had made a fundamental decision that salvaged his political career. Despite being convinced that the 1960 election had been rigged in Illinois and Texas, he did not challenge the outcome - and finally landed in the Oval Office eight years later. Donald Trump did the opposite, taking his 2020 election challenge to the limit. And given his strong pre-Covid economy and his containment of foreign conflicts compared to Biden’s inflation and ground wars on two continents, most informed observers believe that had he accepted defeat relatively gracefully, Trump might well hold a commanding lead right now. Instead, the question facing Trump, similar to Harris regarding Biden, is whether he will own his entire record, from the economy to the pandemic, from foreign policy to the explosively controversial conclusion of his four years in DC. Unlike with Harris, big media will dig up and expose Trump’s every flaw.
So Harris proclaims that she will shut down the border after leaving it open for three-and-a-half years. How many people will actually believe it? The best method to avoid answering the question would be to change the subject. But to what? Harris has no executive experience, no economic expertise, and no foreign policy credentials. She openly supported the cataclysmic surrender in Afghanistan. And her word salads over the last three-and-a-half years made it impossible to actually understand what she believes.
But to those who were shocked by Harris’ performative ability – as opposed to her substance – in the debate against Trump, it is instructive to remember that this is not her first rodeo. She has been through campaigns for San Francisco District Attorney, California Attorney General, the US Senate, the presidency, and the vice-presidency. Many people believed that her widely panned performance as VP and her problems articulating her leftist beliefs would translate directly to the debate stage. And she benefitted enormously from low expectations, elevating her game, passing her first real test, and turning the election into a toss-up with 50 days to go.
Will Harris Channel Biden?
When voters reach crunch time, many will be choosing between what they believe to be two unappealing options. They pretty much know about Trump’s agenda for better or worse, but will they believe Harris would be a president much different than Biden? And if she is, would she tack even further left, consistent with her ideology over most of her career, or towards the center, where she now claims she will take the country?
Unless this election fundamentally differs from virtually every preceding presidential contest, voters will cast their ballots based on their own self-interest. The one issue where Harris enjoys a clear advantage is abortion, but voters are wary of her still-vague policies on the most important issue, the economy, as reflected in every poll during this election season. So, for pro-choice women suffering under the same inflation as everyone else – on top of crime, cultural degradation, and the onslaught of illegal immigrants – is the right to abort a fetus on demand enough to vote against their own financial interests? In the end, that may turn out to be the single most significant question undecided voters will ask themselves when they cast their ballots for president.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
