When Kamala Harris threw her hat into the 2020 presidential ring, many predicted fireworks, and she certainly delivered – if you count spectacle as substance. Kamala Harris, the former District Attorney of San Francisco and later Attorney General of California, announced her bid for the presidency on January 21, 2019. From the liberal stronghold of California, she promised a progressive agenda to right all perceived societal wrongs. But did her campaign hold anything more than hollow promises? The journey of her campaign provides a blueprint of political theater without substance.
While Harris's candidacy was indeed historic as she aimed to become the first female President of the United States, her campaign quickly became known more for its theatrics than its policy substance. Expect her debates to leave you questioning less, “What are her plans for America?” and more, “Is anyone keeping count of flip-flops today?” Harris had a talent for stirring the pot but often left the kitchen cold with those keeping track of her policy positions.
One can't forget her campaign’s signature moment during the first Democratic primary debate when she attacked Joe Biden on his past stance on busing. A tactic some thought might catapult her into the limelight eventually backfired like a trick cigar. Her poll numbers spiked briefly but quickly fizzled when voters started questioning her consistency.
Remember her proposals on healthcare? You’re not alone if you can't quite put a finger on what those were. They fluctuated more than the stock market during a live pandemic briefing. Harris initially embraced Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All before backpedaling to a more moderate approach. Many onlookers wondered if she was simply riding the political winds wherever they blew strongest.
And let's not brush over her stance on climate change. Her Green New Deal support sounded as firm as a soufflé. As passionate as she seemed about environmental reform, the details behind her enthusiasm were often fogged in ambiguity. An elector's nightmare lay in unraveling layers of generalized promises.
For an AG with a purported focus on justice and reform, how about her criminal justice record? Critics, both within and outside her party, noted her harsh record on criminal prosecutions in California. The whispers of her past gradually transformed into a cacophony she could not silence as the campaign progressed.
Fundraising proved another critical sneak-peek behind her campaign curtain. Harris set out with impressive fundraising capabilities but as the enthusiasm waned, so did the dollars. As months rolled on, recruiting grassroots support seemed akin to drawing water from a desert rock. Why spend your hard-earned cash backing a candidate who felt more like a stand-in than a front-runner?
On the messaging front, Harris’s campaign often lacked cohesion. Her attempts to paint President Trump as a villainous adversary came across more as pantomime than political discourse. Given her experience as a prosecutor, you might have expected her case against Trump to pack more punch.
The writing on the wall etched clear by December 3, 2019: Harris suspended her campaign, citing lack of funds. A memorable run with agenda-setting flair but ultimately little traction among the Democratic voter base.
Conclusively, while Harris’s campaign carried historical significance and moments of vibrancy, it was ultimately defined by confusion and inconsistency. She aimed to captivate a nation ready for change but instead highlighted the theatricality that often haunts the political stage. Her story, at least during the 2020 race, serves as a reminder of what can happen when one over-promises and under-delivers.