Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, continues to evade providing meaningful answers, not just on the topic of inflation, but on a range of issues. During a recent interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Harris was pressed twice to reveal her Day One agenda, but she skillfully dodged the question. This lack of transparency raises concerns about her ability to articulate her values and policy positions.
One of the main indicators of Harris’ values is her track record as a left-leaning California Democrat and her choice of Tim Walz, a progressive politician, as her running mate. However, despite claiming that her values have not changed, Harris has yet to provide a clear policy section on her campaign website. This lack of concrete policy proposals leaves voters in the dark about her specific plans and intentions.
During the Democratic convention, Harris announced an “economic plan,” which focused on price controls. However, when this proposal received widespread criticism, her campaign quickly backtracked, stating that it was not a major policy. This flip-flopping raises questions about the consistency and effectiveness of her economic agenda.
When inflation was raised during the interview, Harris once again fell back on opposing “price gouging.” While this may be a valid concern, it fails to address the broader issues contributing to inflation. It is evident that Harris lacks a comprehensive understanding of the complex factors driving inflation and how to effectively address it.
Furthermore, Harris indirectly admitted that the “Inflation Control Act” was primarily a guise for Green New Deal spending by using it as an excuse for no longer endorsing the Green New Deal or a ban on fracking. This tactic seems aimed at appeasing the left-wing base of the Democratic Party, rather than providing substantive solutions to pressing issues.
Harris also defended Bidenomics and has not presented any distinct economic policies beyond the abandoned price controls. Her calls for trillions in new federal spending and support for tax hikes align with the Biden administration’s agenda, suggesting that she intends to continue the same policies.
Despite this alignment, Harris attempts to differentiate herself by claiming to offer a “new way forward” and turn the page on the past decade. However, it is unclear which aspects of the Obama-Biden era she wants to move away from, considering Joe Biden served as vice president during that time. This vague rhetoric gives the impression of word salad—speaking at length without offering factual information or firm convictions.
It is concerning that Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, also fails to provide substantive answers. His grammar mistakes and lack of clarity further contribute to the overall lack of transparency surrounding their campaign.
While many media outlets appear to overlook these shortcomings, it is crucial for voters to hold candidates to a higher standard. The evasion of facts and firm convictions, and the reliance on vague rhetoric, do not inspire confidence in Harris’s ability to effectively address the pressing issues facing the country. Voters deserve clear and concise answers from their candidates to make informed decisions.
