Ex-Vice President Kamala Harris reemerged into the public eye with a diatribe against former President Trump’s tariff policies, labeling them as ‘impetuous.’ She warned about the potential of steering the nation towards a recession due to these irresponsible policies. Strangely, the concept of ‘chaos’ seems to be the theme Harris has attributed to recent developments, grounded largely in her skewed interpretation of the tariffs. A baffling claim, given the genuine economic improvements seen under the Trump administration.
Kamala Harris went as far as to say that these tariffs are on track to create what she deems the ‘greatest human-induced economic catastrophe in contemporary presidential history.’ Contrary to her feelings, large portions of America have applauded the fortitude of the nation to stand up to unfair trading partners. Despite Harris’s erroneous assertions, these tariffs were perceived as a strong-handed approach towards rebalancing global trade norms orthogonal to American economic interests.
Wednesday’s public appearance marked Harris’s descent into a full-blown critique of her former political competitor, accusing him of having ‘a narrow, self-serving vision of America.’ It’s easy to see how such accusations could be misinterpreted and blow back on herself. Her claims that Trump’s agenda included punishing those who speak the truth, favoring the faithful, and exploiting authority for personal gain, seems more like projecting personal vices onto others. Damning allegations that could be equally applicable, if not more so, to Harris’s own questionable track record.
Alarmingly, Harris dared to predict the breakdown of our cherished systems of checks and balances, ushering an impending constitutional crisis. This is a predilection for hyperbolic rhetoric rather than a grounded evaluation, pointing towards a crisis that, in reality, still seems distant and unlikely. Her implication that such a crisis would erode our fundamental rights and freedoms, and annul the democratic principles governing our nation, is an unwarranted distortion, one could even call it a scare tactic.
On a final note, Harris, who has managed to keep a fairly low profile since departing Washington early this year, mentioned she was ‘inspired’ by the so-called courage demonstrated against Trump’s supposed second term. Examples of such ‘courage’ included vocal opposition to deportations without due process, and maintaining the rule of law. It’s regretful that she didn’t also commemorate the courageous efforts to uphold law and order against rampant illegal immigration, an aspect she conveniently left out.
Her idolized figures included Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, who made a journey to El Salvador to publicize the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a deportee from the Trump administration apparently sent back by accident. However, one could argue that using isolated instances as emblematic of a broader policy is a manipulative tactic and serves to blur the overall picture.
She also recognized Senator Cory Booker’s exhaustive 25-hour rant against Trump’s policies on the Senate floor. A histrionic piece of political theatre. It’s one thing to engage in meaningful discourse, but it’s quite another to lay waste to precious time in service of self-promotion.
Further, she gave props to the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders for gathering considerable crowds in conservative states, an unremarkable accomplishment given their popularity among disgruntled and disorganized segments within the Democratic Party. Provoking unnecessary controversy seems to be their modus operandi.
The final sentiments expressed by Harris were more ominous than constructive, stating that ‘things are probably going to get worse before they get better.’ Which gives credence to the notion that doomsday rhetoric constitutes a pertinent part of the Democrats narrative, even when reality provides for a more nuanced discussion.
With a defiant tone, she assured her audience with the words, ‘but we are ready for it,’ a nebulous claim that raises more doubts than assurance. There’s a lingering sense that much of her narrative might be strategically designed to stoke fear, and one can only hope that it does not create the adverse circumstances they claim to tackle.