The "evolution" of Kamala Harris

The title of this Washington Post article (in the paper edition) is: “Harris’s political views have evolved over the years — and are still evolving.” There’s no doubt that Harris’ public positions on many issues — e.g., energy policy, immigration policy, health insurance policy, and crime/policing — have “evolved.” In other words she’s flip-flopped.

But that doesn’t mean her actual views have changed. Thus, the Post comes closer to the truth in the title of the internet version of the same article: “Harris’s policies have shifted and are still taking shape.”

It would be surprising if anyone in her 50s genuinely held diametrically opposite opinions on numerous key issues during the course of just a few years. Therefore, the most logical explanation for Harris’ rapid “evolutions” is that one or the other of her conflicting views wasn’t genuinely held. In other words, the most logical explanation is raw opportunism. (This is how the Post treats JD Vance’s evolution, and Vance was a young man when he started “evolving.”)

The Post’s article doesn’t deny that Harris’ public positions are, indeed, the product of opportunism:

In 2019, Harris articulated liberal positions as she sought to distinguish herself among a crowded group of Democratic contenders, many of them tacking to the left to court voters in the primaries. Now her singular focus is taking on Republican nominee Donald Trump with a big emphasis on winning over swing voters.

Right. Harris’ stances depend on what she thinks is politically advantageous at a given moment.

Having conceded this, however, the Post raises another possibility:

But Harris’s critics say her dramatic shifts on so many issues point to a deeper issue — that Harris has few core political beliefs and only a vague governing philosophy.

Who are these ”critics?” The only one the Post quotes doesn’t say Harris lacks core political beliefs. He says only that “the average voter does not have a well-defined vision of her.”

The one possibility the Post doesn’t consider is this: Harris has core beliefs about policy — stock left-wing beliefs — but wants to hide, and when necessary disavow, them in order to become president. This is the most plausible possibility, and the most damning (which is probably why the Post steers clear of it).

One could respect Harris if, like Bernie Sanders, she stuck to her radical guns as a presidential candidate. Alternatively, if Harris were a blank slate one could at least hope that she would “evolve” into a center-left president, instead of a hardcore leftist. But unfortunately, it looks like Harris is quite similar to Sanders on substance, but without the Vermont socialist’s integrity.

What’s the evidence that Harris is a leftist? First, there’s her background as a San Francisco Democrat. Second, there are the hard-left positions she took as a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

The Post wants to explain those away by attributing them to an effort “to distinguish herself among a crowded group of contenders.” But her radical positions on matters like immigration and energy policy did not distinguish Harris from others in the field. Whenever the debate moderators called for a “show of hands,” Harris’s hand was one of many that signified approval of the far-left position.

Nor did running a hard-left campaign create a unique “lane” for Harris. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren held down the hard-left lane.

There was actually more room towards the center-left. Amy Klobuchar exploited that lane and fared far better than Harris did. But when the campaign began, Klobuchar wasn’t considered much of a contender. As an attractive black woman, Harris probably would have prospered in the lane Klobuchar grabbed.

Accordingly, the desire to distinguish herself is a poor explanation for the leftist positions Harris took in 2019. It’s far more likely that she took these positions because, reflexively, she’s a leftist.

Third, there’s Harris’ decision to select Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz might well be the most far-left governor in America, surpassing even Harris’ fellow San Francisco Democrat, Gavin Newsom.

He’s an across-the-board radical —on education policy, on crime and policing, on immigration, on taxation (see Jim Dueholm’s comment on this post). Walz doesn’t shy away from the socialist label. Rather, like Howard Zinn, he equates socialism with “neighborliness.”

With less radical alternatives from states far more important in this election than Minnesota, Harris chose Walz.

One might say her choice at least elevated conviction over opportunism, but I don’t think so. I believe Harris and her team thought they could get away with nominating a hard-core radical because of his “everyman” persona and a mainstream media that would provide cover. The sad part is that Harris and her team might very well be right.

If I’m right that Harris is a left-winger but also an opportunist willing to trim her ideological sails to achieve political gain, can we at least hope that, if elected, she will curb her leftism to retain popularity? Yes, we can hope for this outcome, but we shouldn’t expect it.

Joe Biden was less radical than Harris, but every bit as opportunistic. He governed from the left. There’s good reason to believe that Harris, buoyed by victory and mistaking it for a mandate to be her genuine self, would do the same.