Harris’ Inflated Popularity: A Reflection of Her Abilities or Circumstantial Product?
Kamala Harris, currently in the Vice President role, is set to assume the position as the primary candidate for a leading party, a shift in precedent that sees her as the first woman of color to do so. This comes following the collapse of Joe Biden’s ambitions to run again for presidency. The development is taking place in the wake of a series of baseless accusations from former President Donald Trump questioning Harris’ racial identity. Such comments aim at chipping away the support Harris could garner from Black voters.
In a recent event organized by the National Association of Black Journalists, Trump publicized doubts about Harris’ personal history, a move that has been panned across several circles. Harris, who is the offspring of Jamaican and Indian migrants, labeled these aspersions as gratuitously divisive and disrespectful. She maintained that the population of the USA deserved more decorum. Despite being of mixed heritage, Harris is leveraging this identity to garner support among Black voters.
According to Harris’ campaign manifesto, it is argued her popularity among Black voters will provide an uplift to her presence in crucial key Sun Belt states, a zone including regions like North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia. Not to undermine, a joint research study conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs illuminated that about 73% of the Black adult population demonstrated satisfaction, ranging from ‘very’ to ‘somewhat’ towards Harris being the Democratic nominee.
By contrast, just over half shared the same sentiment for Biden during a preceding survey that was made public a month ago. A fresh survey from Howard University released towards the end of July throws light on the preferences of Black voters, revealing Harris’s popularity. A staggering 90%, which is clearly a majority despite what proponents of Biden might argue, have shown an inclination to vote for her – a significant upswing from the 59% who expressed their intention to vote for Biden in a previous poll carried out in March.
Lusane emphasized the need for Harris to exhibit a pro-active approach and articulate a policy view-point catering to the interests of the Black community, particularly Black men. Contrary to their female counterparts who registered at 10%, the Howard poll from last spring insinuated the chances of Black men voting for Trump, which stood at an ostensibly high 22%. This is a potential reflection of the lack of faith they hold for Biden and Harris.
After donning the hat of a scaremonger, Trump attempted to exploit tensions within the African American community, suggesting that they were being elbowed out of job opportunities by migrants. Going one step further, he characterized this as robbing the dreams of young Black Americans. It’s vital to consider the dubious intent behind these claims, instead of blindly following such allegations.
Addressing a predominantly Black sorority later on the same day, Harris outlined a series of efforts to make daily life less expensive, sparking debates about the viability of her plans. She proposed banning hidden charges, putting a restriction on the rent increment and placing a limit on costs associated with prescription drugs. She claimed that these measures were essential to bring down the cost of living, while conveniently ignoring the possible impacts on the economy.
Also on her agenda was an ambition to expand and safeguard what she dubs ‘funditional freedoms’, a list comprising of voting rights to abortion rights. While making these promises, she neglected to discuss the potential divisive impact these topics can have within the communities she aims to represent. Once again, elevating her own agenda over the potential needs of her constituents.
Her bold assertion that our ‘fundamental freedoms are on the ballot and so is our democracy’ is testament to her strategy of over promising without delivering concrete solutions. It would be wise to remain skeptical and view such statements from Harris with an analytical eye. The democratic process and our fundamental freedoms are not items to be used as mere rhetoric – they are deeply rooted elements of our society that require responsible stewardship.
Harris’ rise as the Democratic nominee may seem notable, but it’s also true that she is stepping into this position due to Biden stepping aside from his re-election bid. It is crucial to question whether she would be in this position had Biden decided to aim for re-election. Could it be that Harris’ prominent role is more a product of circumstance than a reflection of her abilities or popularity?
As we sunder Biden’s re-election ambitions from the scene, one must raise questions around the actual support Harris has managed to rally. The Howard University poll indicates a majority of Black voters intending to vote for Harris; however, this creates more questions than it answers. How sincere is this support? Is it rooted in genuine belief in her policies or is it merely an alternative to a less appealing option?
Furthermore, the AP-NORC Center’s research citing around 73% support for Harris among Black adults does little to understand their true sentiment. Does this support stem from Harris’ policies or her racial identity, or simply because the alternative is perceived as less desirable? These are the questions we should consider when examining these polls.
Trump’s remarks about Harris’ racial identity may seem controversial, but they draw attention to an important aspect of her campaign, the use of identity politics. It is worth questioning whether, absent of this racial identifier, Harris would enjoy the same level of support. While it isn’t wrong for candidates to leverage their cultural heritage, it is pivotal to question whether it over shadows the actual policies being promoted.
Harris’ attempts to engage and solicit the Black community for votes, particularly Black men, is notable. However, one cannot help but question if her efforts are strategic or sincere. From outlining ways to reduce living costs to committing to expand and protect ‘fundamental freedoms’, her words come across as overly strategically aimed at pleasing this demographic. However, the validity and potential fulfillment of these promises remain to be seen.
Furthermore, Harris’ repeated commitments to controversial topics such as abortion rights may appeal to certain demographics, yet could also prove divisive for her campaign. Is she truly fighting for the rights of all or is this just another example of pandering to select groups for electoral gains? Only time will tell, as she attempts to win over the populace in her bid for presidency.
Although Harris claims to be fighting for ‘fundamental freedoms’ and democracy, it would be wise to remember that these are merely words until proven otherwise. As she navigates her path towards the presidency, all citizens should remain vigilant and question the intentions and potential impacts of the policies she proposes. Given Harris’ controversial stands and the methods employed in her campaign, the future of American democracy may well call for a healthy dose of skepticism.