The puzzlement that often arose from Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign lahnguage continues to leave many people confounded. Her memorable phrases, though adroitly presented, usually induced more head-scratching than admiration. Recollections of epitomes such as ‘What can be, unburdened by what has been’ echo in the minds of those who were exposed to her communicative maze.
Another unforgettable assertion she leaned on was: ‘The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time… there is such great significance to the passage of time.’ The phrase, with its insistent repetition, left many wondering about the value of such redundancy.
Then came another perplexing affirmation: ‘It’s time for us to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day.’ These bewildering proclamations do raise a question on possible political success when it is promoted through utterly incomprehensible slogans.
Against this backdrop, one can only feel a pang of sympathy for the cohort of unsuspecting 4,500 real estate agents in Australia, who were audience to a Kamala speech at an event. Little did they suspect that they would have to sit through an hour-long labyrinthine dialogue with Kamala steered by Australian real estate lord, John McGrath.
The repercussions of this gathering reverberated across the digital space, raising laughs and head-shaking more than accolades. The pinnacle of chortles raised was from a headline that read: Australian Media TRASHES Kamala Harris as She Cackles at Real Estate Conference Down Under: ‘I Am Unemployed Right Now!’ The nature of this spectacle makes one question the judgment of hiring a speaker known for her ambiguous discourses.
A particularly defining moment in the speech was when she resuscitated the indecipherable phrase ‘Unburdened by what has been.’ She rehashed this William Shakespearean-level insight to the Australian participants, saying: ‘I think it’s very important to understand that people who fight for equality, fight for freedom, they see what can be and are unburdened by what has been, they believe in what is possible. So even though it may be characterized as a fight, it really is it should I think be thought of in the context of a fight for something as opposed to against something.’
One could not help but to ponder over why such an occasion featuring Kamala, a figure presumably of considerable influence, was conducted under such stringent limitations, with the media making a conspicuous absence. These circumstances seemed rather contradictory given her assumed aspirations for upper tiers of political office.
The whole event seemed shrouded in contrivances, as one may find it hard to reason why any active U.S. politician with prospects of claiming high office would appreciate such public oblivion for her significant discourse.
This odd occurrence could be speculated to be due to Kamala’s hesitation that her remarks, given their mashed-up essence, might dampen her prospects for future public speaking platforms. Would these engagements be valued positively given her consistent reputation of word salads?
Irrespective of the intention or cause, for the observing public, it did offer some respite from the otherwise convoluted pool of assertions – a brief pause from the verbal chaos.
As it turns out, the brevity of straightforward and clear speeches seems almost like a blessing in the landscape of political communication replete with ambiguous declarations.
It would also seem that while cryptic language might add an element of complexity and novelty to a discourse, the understanding of the audience should always be prioritized – a lesson clearly overlooked by those steering Kamala’s messaging.
In the end, we are left with the concerning possibility that Kamala’s discourse style, with its erratic interpretations, might be a recurring feature. Only time will tell if this will change, or if we will keep grappling with such mystifying snippets from her.