A definitive method to maintain significance is to continually criticise something or someone which is widely respected. Commonly, people often rebuke Simon Harris for his extraordinary energy or his presence on social media, whilst advocating for a deeper connection between politicians and the youth. There’s also criticism for the Labour Party for making a coalition in 2011, fully aware that it was the only viable government setup when the nation was in crisis.
The latest subject of condemnation is Kamala Harris. Even though the Democrats are currently reaping the benefits of an authentic energy that can’t be fabricated or purchased, those striving to stay important can only subtly express their disapproval of her postponing traditional policy interviews.
Five weeks have passed since Donald Trump narrowly avoided a major incident. Less than a month has passed since Harris filed her official presidential candidacy documents.
For close to four years, Trump has been running his campaign, while Harris initiated her presidential bid in just three weeks. She managed to rally the party unity behind her (remarkably), conducted at least 18 rallies that drew large audiences, introduced potential vice-presidential candidates, discussed goals warmly with Tim Walz similarly as Obama once did with Biden (apparently), gained significant endorsements and celebrity support, raised an immense amount of funds, secured extensive free media coverage that used to be Trump’s exclusive right (valued around $2 billion in 2016), prepared for the convention and her significant address to the country, influenced the polls in her favour, mocked Trump on his preferred platform with contrasting crowd images, and – most impressively – inspired enthusiastic delight across much of the world. All this whilst preserving due esteem and thoughtfulness for the president in anticipation of her official nomination this week.
Over the weekend, Trump was vociferous in his disapprovals, labeling his opposing candidate as an “extremist” and a “madwoman” during his rally in Pennsylvania. He shared a barrage of peculiar ideas on his social media platform within an hour, including illegitimate poll results, likening himself to Abraham Lincoln, and launching assaults and threats on people. He also posted fabricated AI images of Swift supporters for Trump. Harris, while on a bus trip through Pennsylvania on that same day, refrained from mentioning Trump’s name, instead emphasising that the worth of a leader should not be judged by those they belittle, but by those they empower.
This, however, does not imply that Harris should be given an unconditional ticket to the presidency. Given the unpredictability of this election, it’s evident that Harris will face anything but an easy journey. For every legitimate query on the economy or immigration, expect to find innumerable posts smearing her name as an alcoholic, or branding her as the unintelligent product of the liberal DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) agenda, even referring to her as a woman who traded sexual favours for success. Trump scorned Clinton in 2016, accusing her of exploiting “the woman’s card”, taunting her resilience and ridiculing her voice. Presently, he accuses Harris of resorting to “the race card”, engaging in race-baiting tactics, deriding her name and racial background, casting her as a bitch, a madwoman, and a communist, among other derogatory terms.
Just a few weeks ago, Trump was neck-and-neck with Harris in the polls and he rebuffed any chances of a debate with her. Why did none of the analysts pen their thoughts then?
The choice made by Harris to postpone formal interviews amid the frantic race to garner campaign momentum, to reestablish and clarify her identity to the nation, raises as many questions for the US media (and some nearer to home) as it does for her own campaign. What have they been doing in the previous four years? She has always been the most apt individual for the task. In confidential conversations, journalists verify that she handles complex policy issues effortlessly. Who lost their focus and what was the reason?
However, the bipartisan finger-pointing continues unabated, despite evident dishonesty on behalf of the Republicans. Queries directed towards Harris tend to focus more on Trump’s latest foolish outburst rather than policy matters. His insidious ramblings, deceit and hyperboles are accepted as the norm.
Those complaining about a “lack of policy” need not worry. Debates are on their way. So too are interviews centred on policy. Her overarching objectives are set, yet it appears that Harris and her team have grasped that these elections are about things other than issues and policy. If voters highly valued in-depth policy knowledge, Hillary Clinton would be the perpetual president and Brexit would have met a swift end. It seems slightly imprudent to insist on five-point plans while Trump’s representatives are scheming to dispute a Democrat victory and he is poised to implement Project 2025.
Can Harris be relied upon? Is she capable of leading? Offer her the courtesy and opportunity to disclose who she is.