Staff Reports
Kamala Harris recently unveiled her policy proposals on her campaign website after what seemed like an eternity of dodging the media. It only took her nearly two months of being in the presidential race to throw together a collection of vague ideas that are likely to leave voters scratching their heads in confusion. This long-awaited reveal has proven to be a masterclass in how not to run a campaign, highlighting just why her candidacy is so unappealing.
Throughout this delay, Harris has maintained a mysterious presence, opting not to hold press conferences or give solo interviews. Instead, she has relied on her aides to leak information to the press, which has gone along with this charade. One might wonder if her campaign was spurred into action by a recent poll showing her trailing behind Donald Trump—a reality check that presumably jolted her into finally putting something down on paper. The result is a collection of words that seem to evade clear meaning, wrapped in political jargon.
4 observations about Kamala Harris’s new policies on her website:
1.) They’re mostly ambiguous
2.) She posted them the weekend before the debate so that she won’t get slammed for not having them on Tuesday.
3.) She makes a bunch of false abortion claims (Saying that Trump… pic.twitter.com/jvr7s3rIwI
— Jackie Chea ⚖️ (@Fair_and_Biased) September 9, 2024
Take, for example, her international relations stance, which reads like an indecipherable mix of commitment and confusion. She pledges to protect U.S. forces from Iran and will stand by Israel. However, her goals of ensuring Israel’s right to defend itself while simultaneously promoting the idea of peace with conflicting parties gives off a tone of wishful thinking rather than actionable strategy. It’s hard to believe that after years of empty promises about ceasing hostilities in the Middle East, she thinks voters will take these unqualified assertions seriously. Under her administration, the same broken promises about peace deals seem likely to continue, mere echoes of a failed foreign policy.
On the domestic front, Harris’s approach to the economy is equally lacking in substance. She plans to crack down on so-called “anti-competitive practices” that allow corporations to raise prices, but one has to wonder how this translates into real policy. She waves a magic wand over issues like price gouging without providing concrete examples or outlining specific steps to alleviate rising food costs. Her grandstanding against Big Pharma evokes skepticism, especially since it lacks any detailed blueprint of action. Harris’s assertions are more akin to campaign slogans than a robust economic strategy, leaving many voters questioning how she plans to improve their financial situation.
When it comes to Social Security, Harris’s strategy amounts to little more than a tired slogan promoting higher taxes on the wealthy. The idea that hiking taxes on millionaires will somehow fortify Social Security without acknowledging the program’s much deeper financial woes seems like fantasy. In fact, it appears to be a blatant mischaracterization of Donald Trump’s actual positions, as he has repeatedly been misrepresented as seeking to cut Social Security. Harris’s plan conveniently overlooks the complexity of financial reform and instead hedges on a simplistic tax solution that fails to give Americans the assurance they need regarding their future benefits.
Her energy policy, synonymous with her broader platform, is steeped in the same ambiguity. Harris boasts about supporting the Inflation Reduction Act as a means to lower energy costs without offering specifics about how these savings will materialize in people’s lives. Her claims of creating “high-quality clean energy jobs” through this act, which many view as an ineffective boondoggle, stand under scrutiny since they provide no solid ground beneath her lofty rhetoric. It’s become a trend among Democrats to fling buzzwords about combatting climate change while failing to address real, everyday economics.
In summary, Harris’s long-anticipated policy rollout represents a patched-together series of broadly worded, uninspiring ideas that offer no real solutions or innovative thoughts. Her proposals convey the same political tropes that voters have heard from the left for years, recycled without any semblance of originality or effectiveness. If Harris hopes to convince the American public that she is the candidate for change, she has a long road ahead of her, one that requires more substance and less fluff. The reality is clear: there is little here that would inspire confidence or excitement among potential voters, leaving the question of whether anyone is actually falling for her campaign strategy on the table.
