Harris’s Evasive Tactics: Weakness or Strategy?

Despite the sugar-coated reporting on Vice President Kamala Harris by mainstream media and liberals, few are willing to delve into the hard truths. In the fanfare surrounding her ascension to the Democratic Party’s nominee ticket, little effort has been made by these outlets to critique her policies. This glaring omission parallels the neglectful coverage of President Joe Biden’s questionable cognitive skills.

Even as media outlets enthusiastically promote Harris while taking jabs at the Trump-Vance ticket, a thread of skepticism is beginning to emerge. Jay Caspian Kang, staff writer for the New Yorker, pointedly questions the absence of scrutiny on Harris’ policies, daringly veering off the prescribed liberal narrative.

Kang uses the analogy of a tennis ‘pusher’ to depict Harris’s lacklustre campaign strategy. A ‘pusher’ merely responds to an opponent’s move, waiting for them to trip up rather than taking the initiative. This, according to Kang, is the heart of Harris’ approach: wait in the wings for Trump or Vance to stumble.

However, the VP’s tactic of evasion extends beyond mere campaigning. She is conspicuous in her silence, rarely fielding questions from reporters and preferring to parrot rehearsed rhetoric at rallies. Even J.D. Vance highlighted Harris’ aloofness, using the hashtag #wheresKamala on Twitter to spotlight her unresponsiveness.

A number of grave concerns plague the Harris administration, yet are conveniently ignored. She has declined to elaborate on the fallout in Washington following Biden’s dismal debate or curiously why her stance on fracking and Medicare For All has seen an inconsistent shift. Her ambiguous relationship with Lina Khan, Federal Trade Commission’s head, and her hazy plans regarding conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are equally unsettling.

Echoing the need for transparency, Kang urges Harris to be forthright about her intentions regarding a ceasefire in Gaza and an arms embargo against Israel. Unfortunately, these demands for clarification are met with more evasion.

Ohio Senator J.D. Vance cleverly capitalized on Harris’ marked reticence, calling out the compliant media right outside Air Force Two during their joint visit to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Although met with silence for nearly a month, Harris finally chose to personally sidestep questions in Detroit, Michigan, promising an interview ‘before the end of the month’.

Kang dissects the blissful ignorance of liberals who seem content to sidestep any criticisms or queries about Harris. Harris commandingly silences any dissenting voices, expressing exasperation when interrupted during a speech by pro-Hamas protestors.

Harris, who was flustered by the confrontation, ludicrously suggested that those who question her would prefer Donald Trump to win. She boldly exclaimed, ‘Otherwise, I’m speaking’, emphasizing her apparent belief in functioning without criticism or questioning. So far, there haven’t been any significant calls for her to take questions similar to what was urged for Biden post his disastrous debate.

Kang cleverly points out the paradox. If she is indeed running a campaign high on momentum but poor on specifics, it should be marked as such, regardless if those cheerleading for Harris believe her substance-dodging strategy might lead to success in November.

S.E. Cupp supported Kang’s viewpoint during a CNN panel discussion when she clashed with Bakari Sellers. Sellers suggested nobody cared for the hard questions, to which she retorted, ‘No, I speak to swing votes all the time,’. Added Cupp, when these individuals ask questions, they are left without legitimate answers.

The Harris campaign’s response? A statement to Fox News Digital defending their strategy, proclaiming her focus to be solely on winning voters. They further obfuscate their need for media interaction by praising their ‘effective’ methods of paid media, on-the-ground organization, proactive campaign scheduling, with interviews being planned ‘strategically’.

Their strategy parodies Trump’s supposedly failed tactics, including tweets, strong interaction with the media, and direct engagement with his voters. However, it seems they’ve chosen a far different path, one that prefers sidestepping hard questions over frank conversations.

Harris’ campaign might regard the new approach as a winning method, blaming their guardedness on a condensed campaign duration and a diverse media landscape. However, with lingering disputes, voters are left with fewer responses and more questions.

It remains to be seen whether this strategy will indeed prove successful. While the media’s uncritical adulation provides a comfortable stage, the voters are watching closely for any missteps, not just from Trump or Vance, but from the sidestepping Vice President themselves.

There are countless questions that need answers, but it seems the Vice President is content with robbing us of the opportunity to voice them. Her strategy may well come back to hunt the campaign in an era where directness is increasingly valued. It begs the question, can a strategy that silences can win voters’ trust?