Values

Of some controversy in the presidential race is Kamala Harris' shift the past few years on some important policy issues. 

When CNN's Dana Bash chatted with Ms. Harris and her running mate on Thursday evening, she said "I want to get some clarity on where you stand on some key policy issues" and asked "do you still want to ban fracking?"

The vice-president stated that she does not and in response to a follow-up question, maintained "in 2020, I  made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024 and I have not changed that position, nor will I going forward..  I kept my word, and I will keep my word."

It is true that Harris stated in 2020- as a part of the presidential ticket- that she would not ban fracking. She had little choice because her superior, presidential nominee Joe Biden, had taken that position. However, in a CNN town hall in 2019, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, Harris had remarked "There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.

  "

Fracking isn't the only issue on which Harris has flipped. In the Senate, she "co-sponsored a bill to ban combustion engine cars by 2040." However,  according to her campaign manager, she "does not support an electric vehicle mandate." Senator Harris also co-sponsored Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill. Yet, "a campaign official told Politico it is no longer part of Harris' agenda."

A day before George Floyd was murdered in Los Angeles, Senator Harris in an interview, CNN has reported, "lauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for his decision to slash $150 million from the police budget and move it into social services."  And in an interview shortly after the killing, she was asked about defunding the police and maintained "this whole movement is about rightly saying we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities."

At an MSNBC gun control forum in 2019, the ex-prosecutor  asserted "we have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program" for assault weapons. Nonetheless, recently "a Harris official told The Hill she would not advocate for a mandatory buyback program."

The Democratic presidential nominee has been accused, legitimately but not justifiably, of switching positions about a wall along the southern border. Three or four months after being sworn into the US Senate in 2017, the freshman tweeted "Trump's border wall is just a stupid use of money. I will block any funding for it."  She posted on Facebook on Groundhog Day 2020 "as I said, Trump's border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and won't make us any safer."

Now, a centerpiece of her campaign is her determination to secure passage of the bipartisan border deal, propelled by Republican senator James Lankford and others, which contained $650 million for maintaining and building additional wall. Stymied when Donald Trump told House Speaker Johnson not to bring the bill to the floor, the legislation contained elements which appealed to Democrats, who were both concerned for immigrants and that they'd be relentlessly attacked by Republicans for ignoring an "invasion" at the border if they did nothing legislatively.

Her campaign also has run an ad displaying at least images of the southern wall, overlaid with the messages "as a border state prosecutor" and "she prosecuted border gangs." That's a little disingenuous, the sort of thing American Jews of a certain age would term "chutzpah." However, neither this, nor ardent support of legislation containing a relatively small amount of wall funding coupled with provisions acceptable to many Democrats constitutes support for the wall.

It is, however, emblematic of the internal contradiction of the Harris' campaign. She once vigorously opposed the wall, enthusiastically supported the (failed) black lives matter movement, and supported a gun buyback program which would have exposed law enforcement officers to angry gun owners who would be mandated to hand over their assault weapon(s).. (The key is mandatory.)

And yet, when asked by Bash about her change of outlook on fracking, the vice president replied

Well, let's be clear. My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.

 

Which is not "clear." Lacking fluency in Kamalese, I cannot translate into English "we can do what we have accomplished thus far. Though it seems unnecessary to do what has already been accomplished, the assertion may make sense in some weird way.

Nonetheless, no remark in the interview garnered as much interest as "my values have not changed."  

Prior to her experience as Vice President, Harris was district attorney of San Franciso, and later Attorney General and United States Senator representing the largest state in the union. She was a Democrat, one from California, and supporter of racial reparations. It is not a stretch to think that she holds those left-wing beliefs she expressed before she became beholden to presidential nominee Joe Biden in 2020.

If instead her views have changed as she wishes voters to believe, her values clearly have changed. If she still believes as she once did, her values have not changed, notwithstanding the much more moderate positions she now is taking. The irony is real, though subtle.

That suggests someone whose values are malleable, who holds to principles, values, and morals which can be compromised or cast aside when convenient. It is unlikely that Kamala Harris' values have substantially changed. It is more likely that those values were never, and are not now, very important to her. .

Share |