If you ask anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of American politics what the greatest challenge facing our country is, they likely won't point to unemployment, immigration, healthcare, abortion rights, minority representation, or even the overall state of the economy. The most pressing concern right now for the United States is its own governance.
I generally lean left, although I’m not opposed to voting Republican if I believe it’s the right choice. That said, I won’t be supporting Donald Trump—I strongly disagree with much of what he stands for. While the Democratic Party seems like the logical choice, even after the Democratic National Convention and the "first" Presidential Debate, I'm still not convinced that Kamala Harris is the ideal candidate for president.
The Biden-Harris administration has faced a turbulent tenure, defined by one of the most challenging periods in recent U.S. history. By mid-2022, inflation had surged to a 40-year high, illegal border crossings had reached record levels, and foreign policy missteps, such as the mishandling of the crisis in Gaza, further compounded the administration’s difficulties.
While inflation has recently eased, bringing some relief to Americans, it’s not enough to erase the economic challenges the country has faced under the current administration. Harris’s own economic agenda, despite her intentions to support labor unions, tax the wealthy, and expand social welfare programs, still feels underdeveloped. Her “Opportunity Economy” is a catchy phrase, but beyond the surface, it lacks the ambitious, transformative solutions needed to tackle systemic issues.
Take housing, for example. Harris has promised to build three million new homes and offer first-time homebuyers a $25,000 down payment—policies that sound beneficial on the surface. She also proposes a $6,000 tax credit for families with newborns, a $50,000 tax deduction for small businesses, and a ban on price gouging to lower grocery costs. While these initiatives might provide immediate relief, they don’t address the deeper, systemic issues like income inequality or stagnant wages. Moreover, her plans lack the broader vision required to invest in education and workforce development, which are essential for long-term economic growth.
If this is the extent of her economic vision, I have to ask: Is it enough for meaningful, long-term economic growth? The Opportunity Economy may sound like a step in the right direction, but without more ambitious plans, it risks being little more than a marketing slogan.
On immigration, Harris's strategy of addressing the “root causes” of migration from the Northern Triangle—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—has shown limited results. While she claims responsibility for driving private investment, they weren’t entirely new to the region, and other factors such as El Salvador’s crackdown on violent crime have likely contributed more to recent shifts. Even if her approach eventually reduces migration—though that remains uncertain, given that Mexico, despite deep trade ties with the U.S., accounts for 48% of illegal migrants—the impact will take years, leaving the current border crisis unresolved.
Harris has stated that if elected president, she would adopt a tougher stance on immigration and “bring back the bipartisan security bill… and sign it into law,” and “hire thousands more border agents.” Yet, what assurance do we have that, as president, a border security bill would even reach her desk for approval?
When asked why she hasn’t enacted any of her proposed policies during her current tenure as Vice-President, her defense was that the administration was still “recovering.” But how long can that excuse hold? Are we still in recovery now? She touts successes like capping insulin at $35, reducing prescription drug costs to $2,000 for seniors, and extending the child tax credit—all significant achievements. But if these were possible during a “recovery” phase, why hasn't she pushed for broader, more transformative policies? These vague responses raise serious doubts about her commitment and ability to bring real change.
In terms of foreign policy, Harris has more recently adhered to established U.S. diplomatic norms, affirming Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas militant forces. However, this stance has put her in a difficult position, as many Americans have expressed frustration with the U.S.'s cautiously proactive role in facilitating the safe release of hostages, minimizing civilian casualties—especially among Palestinians—and pushing for a ceasefire that could lead to a potential two-state solution.
Harris' relatively limited foreign policy experience compared to her predecessors makes me question how she might navigate such a complex and volatile issue. The deep-rooted tensions between Israel and Palestine make achieving a two-state solution increasingly difficult, given numerous failed peace negotiations, Hamas’ unwavering opposition to Israel's sovereignty, and Israel’s efforts to eliminate the terrorist organization. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman has criticized Harris for her perceived naivety, urging her to “stop parroting failed theories” and asserting that “she is neither competent nor well-informed” on the issue.
Furthermore, Harris has never faced a direct international confrontation, making it hard to envision how she would respond in high-stakes diplomatic scenarios. Compared to leaders like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, who command the global stage with aggressive postures, Harris’s lack of confrontation experience is particularly concerning. In a scenario where she needs to negotiate or confront these authoritarian figures, can she hold her own? Her credibility in foreign policy remains untested, leaving serious doubts about how she would maintain U.S. influence and prevent adversarial powers from undermining global stability.
Beyond the facets of economics, immigration, and foreign policy, my biggest gripe with Kamala Harris is more personal: a lack of trust. She has developed a reputation for shifting her political positions based on what’s most politically convenient at the time. While she’s certainly not the first politician to evolve on key issues—every president has had to rethink aspects of their agenda—Harris consistently fails to offer a clear explanation for her sudden and drastic shifts in stance.
Harris has shifted her stance on key issues like fracking, decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings, and single-payer healthcare. While serving as California Attorney General, she opposed the death penalty but still defended it in court. As a prosecutor in both San Francisco and statewide, she handled numerous marijuana-related cases, despite later admitting in an interview to having used marijuana during decriminalization efforts. These shifts suggest a pattern of political expediency rather than conviction.
She herself has admitted to compromising her values both in her legal career and as a candidate. On fracking, for instance, she claimed in a late August CNN interview that her reversal was based on the belief that it’s possible to balance fracking with clean energy jobs. This justification feels half-hearted, leaving me questioning her authenticity.
As Commander in Chief, the president must embody vision, authenticity, and emotional connection with the public. A leader should inspire, offering not just policies but a compelling narrative that stirs the national spirit. Harris, however, seems grounded in pragmatism, lacking both visionary appeal and the warmth needed to connect. Her speeches often feel overly scripted and measured, in contrast to Trump, who, despite his flaws, ignites his base with grandiose rhetoric about America's future. Harris’s fact-driven style, likely shaped by her prosecutorial background, makes it challenging for her to inspire and lead effectively as president.
At the end of the day, the American people deserve more than a “better than the alternative” choice. We need a leader who not only manages challenges but inspires a collective vision for the future. Relying on fear or framing the election as a fight to “save democracy” won’t cut it—voters want real answers, genuine leadership, and a clear path forward. As Kamala often quotes her mother, “Show, don’t tell.” The question now is: can she show us she’s the right choice, or will she simply fall back on telling us why she isn’t the wrong one?
Yash (he/him) is a Copyeditor and Writer at Political Pandora and a student at Tufts University studying International Relations and Economics. He is passionate about the U.S. political sphere and international affairs, particularly foreign policy, and has a keen interest in pop culture.
Disclaimer
Any facts, views or opinions are not intended to malign, criticise and/or disrespect any religion, group, club, organisation, company, or individual.
This article published on this website is solely representative of the author. Neither the editorial staff nor the organisation (Political Pandora) are responsible for the content.
Images in this particular article are taken from external sources and are not a property of Political Pandora. The use of these images are not meant for commercial purposes.
While we strive to present only reliable and accurate information, should you believe that any information present is incorrect or needs to be edited, please feel free to contact us.
コメント