New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters said today that Kamala Harris has a clarity problem. Liberal Twitter is aghast:
I get it: Trump is famous for long, meandering paragraphs of word salad that are sometimes incomprehensible. But even if Peters is wrong in a technical sense, he's right in every practical sense that matters. Trump is crystal clear that:
- He's against illegal immigration.
- He's anti-woke.
- He's in favor of tax cuts.
- He's against China and in favor of protecting American industry.
- He's pro-Christian.
- He'll fight against bureaucratic red tape.
- He's in favor of more coal, oil, and gas production.
- He's anti-crime and pro-cop.
- He's pro-gun.
There are obviously also issues where Trump tries to either stay quiet or fudge his position: Israel, abortion, and climate change, for example. But for the most part, every human being in the country knows at least the direction of his main positions.
This is less true of Kamala Harris. Partly that's because she's been on the national stage for only three months compared to Trump's ten years. But there's more to it than just that. She's certainly in favor of abortion rights. Everyone knows that. She supports Obamacare and believes in climate change. But take a look at that list of nine Trump positions. Harris is a little fuzzy on every single one of them.
I'm obviously extremely pro-Harris, but this doesn't blind me to the way she comes across. Most people know she's generally liberal and will do liberalish things as president, but that's about it. There's still some doubt on where, precisely, she stands on lots of hot button issues. There's no similar doubt about Trump.
POSTSCRIPT: I should add that a little fuzziness isn't necessarily bad. Lots of successful politicians try to appeal to all sides. But it is what it is.
Harris literally wrote down her policy positions and published them on her web site. Anyone who thinks she is unclear hasn't bothered to listen to her.
I am sick of reporters being too lazy to check her website. The same thing happened with Clinton. Journalisrs complain when a candidate talks about policy — just ask Al Gore or Hillary. Hillary spoke about creating new, better paying jobs more than any 2016 candidate and she even had a plan to help revive coal communities that was spelled out on her website. When she tried to discuss at one campaign stop the media deliberately misrepresented he position to make her seem like a callous snob.
“Hillary Clinton’s “coal gaffe” is a microcosm of her twisted treatment by the media
She navigated a hall of mirrors.”
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/15/16306158/hillary-clinton-hall-of-mirrors
They insist people want vibes, someone who can relate to them, who is “more fun to have a beer with”. Then they turn around and accuse that candidate of not having anything to offer a specific group. They could report what the proposals on the website actually says and make sure people know how to find that info.
He is an anti-Islamic bigot. Kamala is not.
He considers Putin an ally. Kamala does not.
He is against renewable energy. Kamala is not.
He considers the Presidency to be a license for personal enrichment. Kamala does not.
He has contempt for large swaths of his supporters. Kamala does not.
He is a stone cold racist. Kamala is not.
He is anti-trans. Kamala is not.
You could have done better on this one, Kevin.
No Ukraine in that list.
You know, you're right. Trump is very clear...
- Expressed admiration of Arnold Palmer after being told that he had a massive dick.
- Loves Black men.
- Enjoys YMCA song.
- Reminds everyone that he is hetero.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Hard to imagine a less relevant metric for deciding who to vote for in the current election than clarity of policy proposals, even if granting the premise that Trump's are clearer than Harris's. For me this election is about democracy and rule of law.
1. He's against illegal immigration.
So is Harris.
1. He's anti-woke.
Harris is pro-woke.
1. He's in favor of tax cuts.
Harris has an actual tax plan.
1. He's against China and in favor of protecting American industry.
Harris is pro American industry and against massive tariffs.
1. He's pro-Christian.
Harris is an actual Christian and is in favor of Religious freedom. Trump has yet to take a firm stance, but he seems to be against it.
1. He'll fight against bureaucratic red tape.
That's not a real issue.
1. He's in favor of more coal, oil, and gas production.
Harris is in favor of more oil and gas. I don't know here stance on coal, but I'll be surprised if she's for it.
1. He's anti-crime and pro-cop.
Trump is decidedly fuzzy on being against crime and for cops, for obvious reasons. Harris is more clearly anti-crime than Trump is.
1. He's pro-gun.
So he is.
Here's some areas where Harris is clear and Trump isn't:
1. Support for NATO
1. Reproductive healthcare generally, as you mentioned. Trump his hazy on other facets than abortion.
1. Whether we ought to follow the constitution
1. Whether presidents should be criminals.
1. On what basis the federal government should respond to crises.
1. On infrastructure spending
1. Whether elections should count.
Overall I'd grade your post about a 35%. F for effort.
1++
+1
Oh, FFS, Kevin. Kamala is "fuzzy", because reality is fuzzy. Do we want a border than anybody can cross? No, because there certainly are some bad "somebodys" who might want to take advantage of a poorly managed situation. But we sure as heck want talented people to choose the United States as the place in which to pursue their dreams.
Do we agree that taxation should, broadly, be "progressive"; that is, should the first dollars a person earns or inherits be lightly taxed and later dollars more stringently? Most people agree with that -- well, except the rich people -- but the "devil is in the details". How soon and how quickly should the tax hill rise? How high should it go? Should different sources of income be treated differently? People of good faith can and do have differing opinions on these questions, and there are good, honest arguments for most positions.
None of that matters to Mr. Nine Points, because he's not going to spend one minute on any of them; he'll be golfing, jetting around the world getting people to kow-tow to him, and porking the interns. [That's a Presidential Perk, as Bill showed us; who knew?]
But, gasp!, Vice-President Harris actually knows that these things are more shades of Grey than Erika Mitchell ever imagined and that we mere mortals can only get within the margin of error in the best of all possible worlds.
Give the woman a break; she's had to think about this stuff for a good while now, and, apparently, the people who do the 'lectin' in California think shes pretty good at it, Lucy!
The only thing clear about trump is his insanity.
His anti-honesty and admiration of dictators are actually clearer.
Oh, for crying out loud. Invest the time to watch this from yesterday and tell me the choice of whose decision framework should be in charge in the Situation Room isn't obvious.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LVgFrlwsUoI
And for laughs, look at the circumference of that McDonald's apron, and google Dave Bautista.
The public isn't engaged with political things for about 99.9% of the time. They remain unfamiliar with politicians who have been on the stage for decades. That's why Kamala Harris is an unknown to them. If they're Republican, they don't stand a chance of having heard *anything* about her.
This campaign demands that she reveal a lot of these things, and she has. Her website, her speeches, the places she goes to campaign, etc. all this tells us a lot about her. She's clearly a no-nonsense person, and vis-à-vis Donald Trump that is enough to convince a lot of people that she's okay. She expresses her positions and demonstrates her character in speeches about moral issues. Those include a woman's right to control her own body, support for Democracy, concerns for the dangers of guns, respect for those who want guns, and many other issues. They all make it clear that she can handle more complex issues without difficulty and without alienating Americans. Trump simply waffles all over the place, pandering to whomever he's standing in front of.
So, her positions are mostly fuzzy because she hasn't been on the stage that long and because a lot of people just need to know more before it will all come into focus. So far, she's convincing a lot of people, if they are willing to listen.
Most of the requirements for president have to do with presidential character (a hard thing to pin down) and discussion of the issues tends to be used to clarify that, or perhaps to highlight some part of it. She's been doing that every step of the way.
Vote for Harris, 2024
I feel like this is the perennial problem of the center-left in a capitalist country.
They are always reduced to saying "the lizard brain approach is wasteful. Let's be smarter about this. Let's have capitalism with smart regulation".
But the lizard brain approach is always an easier sell. The lizards always say "Regulation is for wimps. Let's "get tough".
The result is we swing back and forth between tough guys and smart guys.
If you want fascist positions that shift with his moods and whoever was the last person to speak with him and give him money, vote Trump. If you want Not That, vote Harris, pretty simple.