Is The Excitement Around Kamala Harris Warranted?
What are people hopeful for from a Harris-Walz ticket — and what does it say about our political lens?
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Kamala Harris has garnered a groundswell of support in the three weeks since she became the presumptive (and as of last Friday, official) Democratic Presidential nominee. She’s raised over $300 million from different groups excited about her chances against former President Donald Trump. That excitement has intensified since she announced that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz will be her Vice Presidential candidate.
The Black people constantly dismayed by the news cycle’s depictions of our people as criminals and victims of state-sanctioned violence may be heartened by the image of a Black woman in power. Indian people may similarly be energized by her presence. And there are plenty of women like Trisha Coburn of Bad Ass Harris Advocates, who told The Real News Network that “I jump out of bed in the morning feeling so energized,” since Harris’s White House race began, adding, “I feel hopeful. I haven’t felt hopeful in a really long time.” Like Barack Obama’s 2008 victory, which spurred the “Black Excellence” era, a Harris victory would fuel the aspirations of those who look like her and are pushing up against glass ceilings in every aspect of their life. Many share Coburn’s hope that Harris will push the country in a better direction.
But what is that belief based on? To be clear, there’s no question that people should vote for Harris over Trump in November. That’s a nonstarter. But the people’s collective 180 from viewing Biden as a ho-hum lesser evil to widespread zeal for Harris is puzzling. She’s not that different of a candidate than Biden outside of identity and increased mental faculty. Are those factors alone worth the extravaganza we’ve seen?
Biden lost leftist support because he’s refused to stop funding Israel’s genocide in Palestine. It’s important to note that pro-Palestine groups aren’t merely calling for a temporary ceasefire in military action, but for America to halt their military aid to Israel altogether. Harris scored points for recently noting that she “will not be silent” about advocacy for ceasefire negotiations. Still, in the same speech she expressed America’s “ironclad support” and “unwavering commitment” to Israel, noting, ”Israel has a right to defend itself.”
By calling for ceasefire negotiations, Harris is intentionally obscuring America’s role in what’s happening in Palestine. In reality, we could force a ceasefire by ceasing funding to IDF forces. Netanyahu, who was behind the recent assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, told Congress he’s seeking “absolute victory” in Gaza, AKA complete decimation of Palestinian people. He hasn’t expressed any desire for a permanent ceasefire. And while Harris gains points for calling for talks that aren’t likely to happen anytime soon (instead of outright advocating to cease funding), people are dying every day in Gaza. She’s not advocating for the people, she’s coyly playing both sides while Israel maintains its 76-year imperialist hold on Palestine. Is that really a trait of someone we should be excited about?
On Tuesday, Harris announced that Tim Walz will be her 2024 running mate. Nancy Pelosi has lauded him as a “right down the middle”, “heartland of America Democrat.” Potential voters have commended him for being a pro-LGBTQ candidate and appointing Keith Ellison to prosecute Derek Chauvin, who murdered George Floyd. However, others recall him bringing the National Guard to Minnesota to combat protesters during the 2020 uprising. Walz is a pro-Israel candidate who’s never strayed from the party line about Israel having a right to defend itself, and from 2007 to 2019 voted against a United Nations resolution that vied to make Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal. Walz, like Harris, might be “left” enough to feel like a distinct alternative to Trump, but he isn’t the catalyst for substantive change.
Comedian and writer Amer Zahr recently tweeted his stance on Harris: “Arab American voters are not who we once were. Genocide matured us. We will no longer clap for crumbs. Our demands are real and non-negotiable.” He added, “Permanent unconditional ceasefire now. Ends arms sales to Israel. Then we can chat.” His sentiment transcends Arab Americans.
Domestically, Harris faces a whale of a task as President: America is suffering from rampant economic inequality, cost of living spikes, and crippling public school debt while the police system’s funds are overflowing. And it’s unlikely the police system would face seismic defunding or reform on Harris’s watch. Some of her punitive decisions as a California prosecutor and lawmaker have earned her the pejorative name “Kopmala” among detractors.
Within the last few weeks, Harris’s supporters have been fighting against that derogation, debunking the rumor that she imprisoned “thousands of Black men” for weed offenses. They’ve clarified that the number is “only” 45. And while misinformation should be sniffed out, the sigh of relief that she “only” convicted 45 people is concerning. It ignores that some of the people charged but not convicted did time in California county jails, which is a traumatic, life-altering experience in itself. And even if the number of convicted people was one, ignoring that individual’s plight obscures the fact that District Attorneys and Attorney Generals are complicit in a carceral system that exists to warehouse Black and Brown people. When lawmakers are criticized for their role in the racist justice system they often feign powerlessness within the institution, as if they’re “just doing their job.” But their pursuit of such a predatory position makes them knowingly complicit.
While the Black elite with minimal proximity to the prison system may not care to unpack the insidious links between the sustenance of the justice system and poverty, it’s of prime importance to those of us more closely facing the consequences. Well-meaning people are working within the justice system seeking to advocate for the downtrodden, but Harris’s track record demonstrates that she’s not one of them.
A 2020 Mic report written by German Lopez chronicled her inconsistent criminal justice record.
To her credit, in 2004, she implemented a Back on Track program, which offered supervised education, job training courses, therapy sessions, and life skills classes for first-time nonviolent offenders. She also had a focus on apprehending sex offenders and sex traffickers — though some of her policies infringed on sex workers.
In 2004, she upset cops in the Bay by refusing to seek capital punishment against a man who shot a police officer. But after she was elected as Attorney General by less than one percent (due to no police backing), she seemingly dialed back her reformist ideals. In 2014, Harris appealed a ruling that deemed California’s death penalty system unconstitutional.
She spent years fighting a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that required California to reduce its prison population, and her lawyers openly complained that acquiescing would deplete the state of prison labor — Harris told Buzzfeed that she was unaware of that particular argument. In 2011, she passed a law that allowed parents to be charged with a misdemeanor if their children missed 10% of the school year; since when has giving parents a criminal record put a family on the straight and narrow? In 2019, Huffingon Post reported that “there are still hundreds of families across California entering the criminal justice system under the aegis of Harris’ law.” Daniel Larsen was a wrongfully convicted man who had his freedom denied by Harris because he filed his 2010 petition for release past a certain deadline; he stayed incarcerated for three years after a judge ruled that he should be free.
She also appealed to reinstate a 2015 case that got thrown out because a prosecutor falsified a confession. This track record belies her 2020 assertion that she’s a “progressive prosecutor.” Her reputation as “Kopmala” doesn’t hinge on one unfounded claim about weed arrests, she has a consistent track record of overly punitive decisions that work against the people.
There’s a rampant celebration of her likely Democratic Presidential nomination at the same time there’s widespread dismay over Sonya Massey’s July 6th murder at the hands of Sangamon County (IL) sheriff’s deputy Sean Grayson. The incident has intensified calls to defund the police. Harris appeared understanding of the 2020 “Defund the Police” movement during a June 2020 interview with Hot 97, noting, “this whole movement is about rightly saying we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities.” But a month before her election alongside Biden, Harris’ former press secretary Sabrina Singh noted, "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris do not support defunding the police, and it is a lie to suggest otherwise." She hasn’t pushed back against that statement once during her Vice Presidential term. In 2016, California’s Legislative Black Caucus lamented that Harris opposed legislation requiring her office to investigate police killings, and pushed back on calls to implement statewide standards for police body cameras.
It feels incongruous to see the rightful public outcry against the violent police system while people celebrate a woman whose track record indicates that she’ll look the other way on their violence if it allows her to keep her position. Shared identity aside, could Harris really be considered an advocate for Black women like Massey? And if not, what are people so happy about?
In 2016, the LA Times endorsed Harris for California Senator while noting, “she has been too cautious and unwilling to stake out a position on controversial issues, even when her voice would have been valuable to the debate.” Even while backing her, they were honest about her flaws. But too few of us are willing to do the same in the leadup to the 2024 election.
The charismatic 59-year-old benefits from a celebrification intensified by proximity to stars like Megan Thee Stallion and Quavo. Her most ardent supporters are dismissing anyone who criticizes her criminal justice record. One Twitter account mocked a report about Harris’s alleged conduct toward subordinates as if it wasn’t relevant information. Public servants can’t benefit from the unassailability that pop stars do; they aren’t entertaining us, they’re creating policy that decides the quality of our lives. If anyone should be heavily scrutinized, even by supporters, it’s a politician. And it doesn’t mean we want the other candidate to win.
The hope of Harris may not be about her as a policymaker but as a symbol. Turning down the elation makes room to hear the uneasy voice in the back of our minds telling us that she’s not a hero, but another politician who’s made punitive choices that have destroyed the lives of people just like us. She won’t drastically change the nature of American empire, she’ll merely put a palatable face on it. At that point, the curious would start to question if hollow representation is all they deserve in this lifetime, and if that’s the path they truly want to chart for the next generation. In 2020, and early 2024, the Biden-Trump binary had everyone acknowledging that the two-party system, plagued by corrupt influence by wealthy lobbyists, doesn’t have a practical path to uprooting systemic inequality. Through worldwide uprisings and other initiatives that held the wealthy to task, we grasped for something beyond what we have now. Harris doesn’t change that. Deep down, many of us know this. Maybe we’re defiantly fighting it, asking ourselves if we have the heart to pursue that voice, or just stay within the chorus, condemning any criticism of Harris as a covertly pro-Trump move.
The Black elite are fine riding that train into the White House. It’s worth wondering how many of the Black bourgeois rallying to support Harris are people who, like her, sacrificed their politics to attain their positions. Their economic prosperity came by playing the political game in their industries, looking the other way on their companies’ misdeeds to preserve their standing. The people suffering the consequences of their institutions are out of sight, out of mind. And many of these well-off people will be damned if they give up that “hard-earned” comfort to push for a dramatic uprooting of the system.
What about the rest of us, though? We’re one race, but not one class; our needs and priorities are very different. So while Harris’s top donors raise brunch toasts to the prospect of another Presidential face like them, others wonder: if she sacrificed her principles as a prosecutor and a Vice President, why would she change her ways when the stakes are higher? We should vote for President like we file our taxes; unenthusiastically, through grit teeth. Sure, let’s keep Trump out of office. But getting Harris into office isn’t an achievement. I’m not saying don’t vote, but I’m saying don’t gloat.
This is a free newsletter. Those who wish to support can contribute here:
Venmo: Andre-Gee