I haven’t done a politics screed in a while and that’s mostly because there’s just been so much going on that by the time I find or make the time to write about it, something else has come along. So, I’m just going to note and comment on a few things that have pinged my radar in the last week or so.
As we all know by now, Kamala Harris has been anointed as the Democratic candidate. But BLM and others have pointed out that simply anointing her undermines the very democratic process that Democrats claim to love and be defending against Trump. In response to the party elites anointing Harris, BLM et al have threatened to boycott the election stating that the party cannot simply take their votes for granted.
I never thought I’d say this, but good for BLM. They’re right. No party and its leadership should take any group of voters for granted. Not even if the party elites talk long and hard about how great they are for any given block of voters. The old saw states “never assume, because then you make an ass out of you and me.” Parties and party leaders need to keep this at the forefront of their minds… maybe even a plaque or something on their desks, somewhere where its in front of their eyes all the damn time.
Democratic party elites are currently busily trying to shift the narrative about Harris away from anything that shows her to be hypocritical and/or a pure opportunist.
What have they done, you might ask? Well, let’s take a look, shall we?
First, she has spent her entire career identifying herself as Indian (as in the subcontinent). When she was sworn in to the Senate in 2017, Biden proudly announced that Harris was the first Indian-American to serve in the Senate. There was zero, zero mention of her having black heritage. Harris’ father is Jamaican, born and raised and she has downplayed or simply ignored that side of her heritage until the last few months. Why do you suppose that is? I’d call it opportunistic, given that she’s shifted her background depending on what is deemed best to garner more votes.
Secondly, she has been Biden’s VP since the get-go. A woman who won no primary elections because she dropped out of the race before even Iowa could hold its caucuses. As Democratic elites are so fond of pointing out when VPs run for president… they own the actions of the previous administration more than any other candidate. The Vice-President is second-in-charge. If they aren’t responsible for anything the administration did while they were VP, what were they even doing?
As part of the responsibilities given to her by Biden, Harris became, and still is, the border czar. Biden called her the “border czar” when he gave her that responsibility. It is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst, for the media to try to claim that she was never the border czar. If that’s the story they’re sticking with, then they are implicitly calling Biden a liar. Now, I know they’ve totally thrown him under the bus, but is that something they really want to say?
Stories about the toxic environment in Harris’ office have been floating around since she was DA in San Francisco and California AG. A former staffer from Harris’ time as AG has said that among other things, the entire office staff was required to stand and say “Good morning, General” when Harris entered the office. Additionally, staffers below that of her inner circle were not allowed to look her in the eye when speaking to her. Turnover among Harris’ staff is extremely high and has been in all of her offices including VP. It’s an open secret that she screams and curses at staff when things don’t go her way. All of this points to a toxic boss who is insecure in her position and that’s why she demands unquestioning loyalty and obedience from staffers and why she seems to feel that screaming and generating fear and untold stress is the best way to manage an office. We’ve all had bosses like that and I’m sure we’ve all gotten out of those jobs as quickly as we possibly could. Now, think about that sort of personality as president. If she gets mad at a foreign leader or feels threatened or insulted… what in the name of all that’s holy will she do?
The use of “General” as a title demonstrates that Harris had no comprehension regarding the office she held. The Attorney General is the general attorney for the state government (or the federal government). The term dates from the Anglo-Norman where an individual was named “king’s attorney”. In the US the AG is supposed to protect the public’s rights. “General” is not for an AG is not a form a address.
The toxic work environment also points to someone with strong authoritarian tendencies… the “my way or the highway” approach is just that, authoritarian. You all must do your jobs as I tell you and not as you think best, or I’ll fire you or humiliate you or threaten you.
In her position as California Attorney General, Harris was directly responsible for extending the sentences of prisoners (the majority of which were black men) so that they could be put to work on the fire lines.
As Vice-President of the United States, Harris traveled to Guatemala to have talks with that government regarding the huge influx of people entering the U.S. illegally. In that speech she told those thinking about bypassing legal channels to get into the U.S. “Do not come. Do not come.”
Some will argue that noting Harris is prone to spewing a word salad is unfair and wrong and that I’m just jealous of her speaking abilities, or somehow racist and misogynistic. Every time I hear that, I have to laugh. And laugh some more. Let’s look at some of her more (in)famous comments, shall we?
“It’s time for us to do what we have been doing and that time is today. Every day it is time for us to agree that there are things and tools that are available to us to slow this thing down.” In response to a question on the Today show about the administration’s response to Covid.
“With us in government. We campaign with thee plan! Uppercase T uppercase P thee plan! And then the environment is such that we’re expected to defend thee plan!” In a French lab. She dragged out the word “the” and put on a faux French accent.
“So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for.” Video at the link in case you’re allergic to the NY Post.
“The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time.” A speech in Louisiana about internet access.
All these things are accurate no matter how much the White House, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris herself, and many others are pushing you to believe otherwise.
Supporting Harris means supporting a woman who slept with a married man thirty years her senior (Brown), which man then used his considerable influence and myriad connections to get her two different political appointments leading her running for SF DA, then CA AG, then CA Senator. It means supporting a woman who ran for president in 2019-20 and didn’t make it past Labor Day 2019. Supporting a woman who, as VPOTUS, was dubbed the “border czar” and failed to fix anything with the border and only visited the border once and then over ten miles away from the actual border. Supporting a woman who creates extremely toxic work environments for her staff and thus can’t keep staff. How’s that going to work with Cabinet Secretaries?
You may not like this picture of Harris, but it’s much more accurate than what the media (CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) are trying to push. And that should tell you something about media bias.
Open your eyes, look around, and once again, please do your own research and read those sites/publications you might not normally read.
Don’t be afraid to read something that might cause you to question your beliefs.
I went to law school with this bozo. She was too busy sleeping with the married speaker of the House of the California legislature for me to meet her.
Geoff, I suspect you didn’t miss much.
I love when Professor Ornery comes back out! This is the political assessment I need.
I was concerned that Harris uses too many big words, and speaks above my grade level.
Then they called Vance weird, and therefore I cannot possibly support anyone but Harris.
More seriously, yesterday someone tried out ‘calling Vance weird was an attempt to get conservatives to think’ with a side order of ‘conservatives have been toxic bullies for years’.
I really don’t think that message bearer has an appropriate background in intelligence analysis of US political factions, and of actually making a serious effort to communicate with conservatives.
This lackluster think piece is packed with misleading arguments and personal attacks, and is more about character assassination than a fair critique of Kamala Harris. The professor here seems to be more interested in stirring up controversy than in providing a balanced analysis. Is this the point? Maybe.
For starters, you accuse Harris of being opportunistic in identifying with her Indian and Jamaican heritage. This simplification ignores the reality that people of mixed heritage often face complex identity issues and may emphasize different aspects of their background at different times. I myself can attest to this, being of mixed race. It’s a cheap shot to reduce this complexity to mere political strategy.
The claims about Harris’s supposed toxic work environment are anecdotal at best and don’t reflect a comprehensive assessment. It’s irresponsible to paint her as a universally bad boss based on selective reports. Every high-profile leader, especially in politics, faces criticism from some former staffers, but this doesn’t necessarily define their entire leadership style. Let’s not forget how many of Donald Trump’s former associates refuse to support his run for office (including his former VP).
You also criticize Harris for being part of an administration that you paint as ineffective, particularly in her role related to the border. However, it’s misleading to lay the complexities of immigration policy solely at her feet. The situation at the border involves a multitude of factors, and oversimplifying her involvement ignores the broader context and challenges.
The critique of her speaking style by pulling out a few awkward quotes is disingenuous. Public figures are often caught in moments that don’t reflect their overall communication abilities. It’s not fair to define anyone by their worst moments, and doing so here seems more like a petty attack than a legitimate critique. I’d wager you are quick to dismiss similar quotes from your candidate of choice.
Lastly, the personal attacks on her past relationships and career progression are completely irrelevant to her capabilities as a public servant. Bringing up her relationship with a married man thirty years her senior and implying that her career was built solely on this is not only sexist but also distracts from her professional qualifications and achievements. Let’s leave as hominem at the playground where they belong.
Ultimately, this piece seems more focused on discrediting Kamala Harris through innuendo and selective anecdotes rather than providing a substantive critique of her policies or actions. It’s important to approach political discussions with a fair and balanced perspective, and this piece falls far short of that standard. I would expect someone touting herself as a professor to instead focus on facts and fair analysis, rather than tearing down individuals based on half-truths and personal attacks.
Note: Since WP is not indenting first comment responses, this is in response to “Concerned Student”
Oh, honey. Bless your heart. Let’s take your response one paragraph at a time.
1. Opportunistic in using her heritage.
I’m going to assume that you don’t use your mixed-race heritage to get people to like you or support you for some sort of job/position/activity, but that’s exactly what Harris has done for her entire political career. For *years* Harris only ever touted her Indian heritage. Her black heritage was never mentioned until she started running for office… you know, where you have to convince people you’re just like them. She IS opportunistic and she IS using race for political purposes. You may find being mixed-race is complex, and I agree with you given that today’s social, cultural, and political climate makes it incredibly complex. However, for politicians, race is a valid political strategy and one they use all the time.
2. Toxic work environment: True, data is not the plural of anecdote. However, there have been a multitude of reports from former staffers when she was DA, AG, and VPOTUS that are all very consistent over the last decade plus. That shows a pattern whether you like it or not. As for Trump’s former staffers, a little Google searching will show you that they never agreed with him to begin with and most of them got a book deal out of it. Coincidence? As for Pence, he’s long been a spineless member of the old guard GOP and one of those who’s advocated “taking the high road” while caving to everything the Dems demanded. I have no respect for the man or his opinions.
3. Yes, the border is a complex issue. About which she has not even *attempted* to do anything. She was appointed border czar by Biden and promptly abandoned anything to do with it. Don’t use the excuse of complexity of an issue to cover for failure to even try.
4. Word salad… again, you’re trying to use an “everybody does it” excuse to cover for the complete inability to think on her feet. I’m betting that you were one of those who chortled over GW Bush’s malapropisms when he spoke. When she’s off notes, Harris is not just making the occasional gaffe – she’s spewing nonsense while trying to dress it up as intellectual by using big words.
5. Past relationships and her career: Actually in her case, her past relationships are *directly* relevant to her career. She would not have even made it on the ballot for San Francisco DA and then CA AG if it weren’t for Willie Brown’s endorsement, support, and contacts. I would say the same thing about Newsom… he’s Nancy Pelosi’s nephew by marriage, so there’s a close relationship there too which deserves calling out. Finally, if you’re going to call out Trump’s extra-marital affairs, how is it that you have no issue with Harris being the “other woman” in her relationship with Brown. He was a public figure, his wife was not a secret. Does that not speak to Harris’ character?
Concerned Student – you can do the head-tilting concern-trolling and try to question my motives “for the best of reasons” but nobody is buying it. You’re the one being disingenuous and trying to ignore or downplay issues with Harris that you are trumpeting as problems with Trump. Careful, honey, your hypocrisy is showing.
Based on your tone and the certainty with which you parrot talking points, it seems like this platform serves as a way for you to make yourself feel intellectually superior. I don’t think that has any bearing on the discussion but it is fun to point out.
You argue that Kamala Harris has used her mixed-race heritage solely for political gain. It’s important to acknowledge that many individuals with diverse backgrounds, especially in the public eye, may emphasize different aspects of their heritage depending on the context. Harris has consistently acknowledged both her Indian and Jamaican roots throughout her career and in university. Claiming that she only acknowledged her Black heritage when running for office oversimplifies the complexities of identity and assumes a level of manipulation without evidence.
While some reports have critiqued Harris’s management style, these allegations don’t universally define her leadership. It’s crucial to distinguish between personal grievances and a systemic pattern of misconduct. Additionally, comparing Harris’s work environment to those of other political figures, such as Trump, who faced similar allegations, shows that high-pressure political environments often lead to complaints, which doesn’t necessarily reflect the overall nature of their leadership. I have served in management and leadership roles before (much less challenging to say the least) and it is sometimes impossible to please everyone on your team.
Your claim that Harris “abandoned” her responsibilities as border czar oversimplifies her role and the nature of the assignment. The claim that she was anointed a ‘border czar’ seems misleading at best, given it is not an actual title and the specific responsibilities assigned to her were much different than you are implying. The border issue is complex, involving international relations, federal policy, and local enforcement. The Biden administration, including Harris, has approached this issue with a focus on addressing root causes of migration, rather than quick fixes (like razor wire, walls, mass deportations) that get votes with one base or another. Nuanced approaches may not be as visible or immediately impactful but reflect a long-term strategy. Granted it may be less spectacular than some would prefer.
Public figures often have moments of inarticulate speech, and it’s unfair to define them solely by these moments. Harris, like Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and others, has off (and weird) days, but this does not overshadow her clear and coherent policy discussions and public addresses. Singling out a few instances of misspeaking ignores the broader context of her communication skills. (Better than yours or mine, to be sure)
The assertion that Harris’s career is solely a result of her relationship with Willie Brown ignores her qualifications, work, and electoral successes. While it’s true that connections can provide opportunities (I would not be where I am today without some connections that ended up being very valuable, and I bet you would acknowledge the same about yourself) Harris’s subsequent achievements, including becoming Attorney General of California and a U.S. Senator, were due to her own abilities and public support. Criticizing her for relationships in her past, especially when similar scrutiny is not applied equally to other figures (Vance, Trump), suggests a double standard.
Well, you would know about parroting talking points, you’re doing a great job at parroting the media and White House talking points yourself.
Go reread your first paragraph while looking in the mirror.
This reply to the article seems reasoned, fair, and honest, at first reading.
However:
1) To – suddenly – bring up a facet of her mixed race heritage, one that she had NEVER discussed publicly, at a time (the presidential campaign of 2000) in which she was aggressively courting the votes of THAT VERY SAME DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP, does seem to scream “Pandering”. YMMV
2) The complaints about the toxic work environment, both in the AG office and the VP office are, as you say, anecdotal.
However, numbers don’t lie. NINETY PERCENT of her staff has left. Less than 10 % stuck around. That doesn’t say much about her ability to work with people.
3) The “word salad” problem. It’s not just an unpolished way of talking – hell, Trump himself is a stellar example of sometimes tangled speech.
The real question is: does that mess of words have a point?
The answer is no.
She can portentously spew platitudes with the best of them. What she cannot do is talk about complicated issues, break them down into understandable bites, and hammer that message home.
She just can’t. She appears to be a very shallow, vapid thinker.
4) The relationships with older, married men, Willie Brown is just one example.
And, yes, many, including me, would point out that most of her “success” in CA was due to his help in placing her in well-paid public employment.
(What a guy! Has his fun, and lets the public pay for it!)
Altogether, it results in yet another Dem candidate out of their depth, incapable of even minimal functioning without their staff, and just unfit for President.