An opinion pieced in the New York Times called “The Shifting Convictions of Kamala Harris,” by Carlos Lozada, might be instructive here.” In it he informs us of Harris’ penchant for describing difficult decisions as “false choices” – such as she describes them in one of her two conflicting memoirs.
“Tough on crime or soft on crime? Resources for criminal prosecutions versus money for crime prevention? Supporting cops or holding them accountable? These are all false choices, she writes. (“One year,” she recalls, “my team even had blue stress balls made, with NO FALSE CHOICES emblazoned in white letters.”)”
As you so eloquently point out, so far she has done a good job of navigating foreign policy (and every other potential minefield) with this approach. And given how things have broken for her to this point, especially in the way the media is fawning over her, it is doubtful she will have to do much elaborating before the election.
And as Lozada states at the end of his piece, “When governance forces false choices into real ones, which Kamala Harris will make them?”
Hopefully the debates will force her to tell us. But given the likely moderators and the skill level of her opponent, I’m not terribly optimistic.
That’s all true in terms of false choices. But I actually think she will smoke Trump in the debate. He was good against Biden because Biden was asleep - but i think his only skill in debating is berating people.
Deep and well thought out piece, as usual. Two comments on Gaza. Gaza has a border with Egypt. Egypt seals it for years now, Egypt has flooded tunnels into Gaza and Egypt has established a security zone next to the Gaza border by destroying thousands of dwellings. Nobody blames Egypt for these humanitarian deeds. Only Israel is blamed, especially by the antisemitic Israel hating Squad. Second point. For the Pals, self determination, as they keep saying but nobody bothers to listen, means one thing and one thing only: a state without Jews, a state without Israelis, a state without queers, a state without an opposition. In other words, a real western democracy.
"The DNC was more about showing that she’s ready to lead rather than..."
Sorry but I say this with high probability that she didn't write the speech and quite frankly, a good High School Original Oratory contestant in speech contests could have been just as good a job
Great piece and great questions! I think the people reading it and deeply interested in FP (including myself) are not the people Harris needs to win the election. We're nerds and pretty locked in. If you can find Kursk or Rafah on a map, you probably know who you are voting for. The campaign will be about turnout and the mythical undecideds. As you elude to - emotion and directional vision is what we're getting and, in my opinion, more important than what we would like to see. Will there be a Harris doctrine? Most likely, but I doubt we'll see it before the election and I'm not convinced that's a bad thing electorally.
(I think it's also a function of timing. Ain't nobody got time for that. If this were a traditional campaign we'd already have FP policy papers. ~70 days to go plus early voting)
Agreed, but she won by using emotion and sentiment to her advantage. She skimmed over foreign policy as if she couldn't handle it in any depth. But she couldn't lose by using emotion to win over the anti - Trump crowd. Very smart thing to do since Trump appeals through emotion, negative emotion to be sure, and positive emotion always trumps negative emotion.
Good point Bruce. Definitely won on emotion. Which is usually what these conventions are about. But I feel undecideds were looking for some more meat on the bones on policy, which was lacking.
I had the same reaction to her speech. It was a time for her to share her voice and her vision and I did not hear that. There is not much time between now and the election and what platform will she have to reach people in the way she could have the night of her acceptance speech. The line has been drawn, but there seems to be a reticence on her part to break from Joe Biden, to not criticize him or his accomplishments.
It was not a speech that revealed what she thinks, what she thinks needs to be done. It was too generalized.
It concerns me greatly that she did not deliver the message necessary for her to win. It was a good speech, but it left out a lot of critical content. Another point is the people attending the convention did not respond as I would have thought… they kept shouting, thank you Joe, however, it was almost like they were not listening and responding to key points in Kamala’s speech or those of others… as if they weren’t listening or did not have a clue as to what the speaker was talking about. I thought that rather odd.
Kamala Harris is a leftist. The left wants to "fundamentally change America." To change us into a people dependent on the state instead of a free people working together in the pursuit of happiness. Many of us here in California know the consequences of that. People fleeing.
The apparent Harris doctrine in foreign policy is that there is a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. In her speech she put Israel and Hamas in the same sentence. Thus my inference is not unreasonable. Iran's strategy is to destroy Israel and the West by attrition. To hinder Israel from victory simply plays into Iran's hands and prolongs the suffering.
Kamala is the Vice-President of the United States and still has a job. Why do some expect her to have a Harris doctrine? She would be wrong to announce such a plan. Let's just get her elected, which is the easy part. Getting her inauguarated, not so easy.
An opinion pieced in the New York Times called “The Shifting Convictions of Kamala Harris,” by Carlos Lozada, might be instructive here.” In it he informs us of Harris’ penchant for describing difficult decisions as “false choices” – such as she describes them in one of her two conflicting memoirs.
“Tough on crime or soft on crime? Resources for criminal prosecutions versus money for crime prevention? Supporting cops or holding them accountable? These are all false choices, she writes. (“One year,” she recalls, “my team even had blue stress balls made, with NO FALSE CHOICES emblazoned in white letters.”)”
As you so eloquently point out, so far she has done a good job of navigating foreign policy (and every other potential minefield) with this approach. And given how things have broken for her to this point, especially in the way the media is fawning over her, it is doubtful she will have to do much elaborating before the election.
And as Lozada states at the end of his piece, “When governance forces false choices into real ones, which Kamala Harris will make them?”
Hopefully the debates will force her to tell us. But given the likely moderators and the skill level of her opponent, I’m not terribly optimistic.
That’s all true in terms of false choices. But I actually think she will smoke Trump in the debate. He was good against Biden because Biden was asleep - but i think his only skill in debating is berating people.
Deep and well thought out piece, as usual. Two comments on Gaza. Gaza has a border with Egypt. Egypt seals it for years now, Egypt has flooded tunnels into Gaza and Egypt has established a security zone next to the Gaza border by destroying thousands of dwellings. Nobody blames Egypt for these humanitarian deeds. Only Israel is blamed, especially by the antisemitic Israel hating Squad. Second point. For the Pals, self determination, as they keep saying but nobody bothers to listen, means one thing and one thing only: a state without Jews, a state without Israelis, a state without queers, a state without an opposition. In other words, a real western democracy.
"The DNC was more about showing that she’s ready to lead rather than..."
Sorry but I say this with high probability that she didn't write the speech and quite frankly, a good High School Original Oratory contestant in speech contests could have been just as good a job
Great piece and great questions! I think the people reading it and deeply interested in FP (including myself) are not the people Harris needs to win the election. We're nerds and pretty locked in. If you can find Kursk or Rafah on a map, you probably know who you are voting for. The campaign will be about turnout and the mythical undecideds. As you elude to - emotion and directional vision is what we're getting and, in my opinion, more important than what we would like to see. Will there be a Harris doctrine? Most likely, but I doubt we'll see it before the election and I'm not convinced that's a bad thing electorally.
(I think it's also a function of timing. Ain't nobody got time for that. If this were a traditional campaign we'd already have FP policy papers. ~70 days to go plus early voting)
*allude! Wish I could edit :)
Yes Anthony, good point. I agree it’s about enthusiasum and turnout.
Agreed, but she won by using emotion and sentiment to her advantage. She skimmed over foreign policy as if she couldn't handle it in any depth. But she couldn't lose by using emotion to win over the anti - Trump crowd. Very smart thing to do since Trump appeals through emotion, negative emotion to be sure, and positive emotion always trumps negative emotion.
Good point Bruce. Definitely won on emotion. Which is usually what these conventions are about. But I feel undecideds were looking for some more meat on the bones on policy, which was lacking.
I had the same reaction to her speech. It was a time for her to share her voice and her vision and I did not hear that. There is not much time between now and the election and what platform will she have to reach people in the way she could have the night of her acceptance speech. The line has been drawn, but there seems to be a reticence on her part to break from Joe Biden, to not criticize him or his accomplishments.
It was not a speech that revealed what she thinks, what she thinks needs to be done. It was too generalized.
It concerns me greatly that she did not deliver the message necessary for her to win. It was a good speech, but it left out a lot of critical content. Another point is the people attending the convention did not respond as I would have thought… they kept shouting, thank you Joe, however, it was almost like they were not listening and responding to key points in Kamala’s speech or those of others… as if they weren’t listening or did not have a clue as to what the speaker was talking about. I thought that rather odd.
thank you, Elise, for this post today.
Agree Cecile - although I think she had the crowd in her hand. They only chanted for Joe when she mentioned him.
Kamala Harris is a leftist. The left wants to "fundamentally change America." To change us into a people dependent on the state instead of a free people working together in the pursuit of happiness. Many of us here in California know the consequences of that. People fleeing.
The apparent Harris doctrine in foreign policy is that there is a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. In her speech she put Israel and Hamas in the same sentence. Thus my inference is not unreasonable. Iran's strategy is to destroy Israel and the West by attrition. To hinder Israel from victory simply plays into Iran's hands and prolongs the suffering.
Kamala is the Vice-President of the United States and still has a job. Why do some expect her to have a Harris doctrine? She would be wrong to announce such a plan. Let's just get her elected, which is the easy part. Getting her inauguarated, not so easy.
Orinda, I think the undecideds, who she needs to win over, were looking for more details of how she would govern.