Kamala Harris gave CNN viewers a sense Thursday of what her presidency might be like, if elected: consensus, without direction or leadership.
Harris’s responses were essentially non-answers. Dana Bash quickly moved on, recognizing the futility of pressing further. Harris displayed a lack of prioritization and policy clarity. Instead of concrete plans, she offered buzzwords like "middle class" and "opportunity economy," paired with vague notions of a “plan” that lacked substance.
When asked about changes in her policies since 2019—such as her stances on fracking or the border—Harris insisted that “my values have not changed.” But what exactly are those values?
The specifics remain unclear, and it seems Harris herself is unsure. Her reference to the “climate crisis” and “deadlines around time” was typical of her infamous “word salad”—more coherent than in the past but still riddled with tautologies and repetition.
Harris emphasized the importance of building consensus, which is indeed valid but doesn’t reveal her core beliefs.
Tim Walz, often mocked as Harris’s “emotional support animal” for her post-campaign interview, was similarly evasive. When questioned about past exaggerations concerning his military service and inaccurate claims about using IVF to conceive children, Walz deflected, focusing instead on criticizing his detractors.
Their responses were classic political evasions, lacking substance.
In contrast, former President Donald Trump provided direct answers during a town hall in Wisconsin moderated by former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Asked how he would make life more affordable amidst rising inflation, Trump responded clearly: “We are going to get energy prices down.” This statement reflected a specific policy and priority.
Harris’s response on inflation involved addressing “price gouging,” a misguided approach that doesn’t address the root causes of inflation and could potentially worsen the situation. Her additional proposals, such as expanding the child tax credit and offering $25,000 to first-time homebuyers, are unlikely to tackle inflation effectively and might exacerbate it.
When CNN’s Dana Bash asked why Harris hadn’t implemented these policies during her more than three years as vice president, Harris responded that “we had to recover as an economy” before shifting focus to insulin prices. She reiterated President Joe Biden’s claim about capping insulin costs at $35 per month for seniors, a policy change that reversed Trump’s previous efforts to reduce insulin costs.
Despite her reasonable performance, Harris allowed herself to be seated at a table that made her appear small in a dark studio, while Trump’s town hall was adorned with American flags.
Bash’s questions were generally pertinent, though she missed one critical query: if Harris has “spent [her] career inviting diversity of opinion,” could she provide an example? The absence of an answer would be telling.
Harris, coming from the political monoculture of San Francisco and California, has rarely faced substantial opposition. For her, “consensus” often means accommodating various Democratic factions, which influenced her choice of Tim Walz over stronger candidates like Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania.
On the issue of Israel, Harris said she wouldn’t impose an arms embargo but also failed to prioritize removing Hamas. Her approach was to seek a “deal” without clear direction.
In essence, Harris’s leadership style focuses on reaching deals without substantive guidance, and “consensus” often means catering to the most radical elements. This pattern reflects her past radical positions and hints at future tendencies.