Kamala Harris has yet to do an in-depth interview about how she plans to govern if elected in November.
In fact, with a little more than two months until the election, she hasn’t said anything real.
This is especially the case when it comes to the main issue for most voters, which is the economy.
Her campaign website has no significant economic-political positions; her campaign hasn’t issued any definitive statements about where they stand on taxes, fracking and more.
What she has said is that she is opposed to lowering the price of groceries, stopping excessive profits – ignorant, it seems we already have laws on the books for that and if passed such policies will lead to rationing and higher prices.
She suggested she would raise corporate taxes and tax rich people more, just as her boss is doing in his latest budget proposal. How much? No one really knows.
And yet her financial advisory team preaches Kamala’s gospel to anyone who will listen. I was one of those people when I recently caught an ear from one of her top advisors.
This wise person assured me that Harris—despite her previous embrace of all left-wing proposals (tax hikes, regulations, Green New Deal subsidies)—would make a competent president centered on the economy, much more so than Donald Trump.
Kamala is a closet moderator, he says during a lengthy DM exchange just before Harris spoke at the DNC Thursday, which was also (surprise!) devoid of political substance.
His reasoning? Well, I’ll quote him directly: “I’m one of her advisors. So here’s a list of really strong entrepreneurs. We’re not leftists. S—t, she was talking about policies that should have a return on investment yesterday. Trump don’t know what ROI is anymore LOL.”
I am withholding the name of the advisor; he is someone i like and admire, a billionaire entrepreneur who made it on his own. I also appreciate his perspective.
But he’s also completely delusional about Harris and the Democratic Party in general. Yes, he hates Trump and thinks Donald would be a terrible president for all the reasons people hate Trump.
Not a clue
But you can’t escape the elephant in the room for any Trump hater who worries about the future of how average people make ends meet on a daily basis: Harris has no idea how to run a $25 trillion economy.
If she did, we would have heard about it by now. Instead, this is a candidacy based on mood and theatrics that don’t matter
If Harris is elected, it will be her real advisers who will be on the receiving end, and those are the tax-and-spend types who created Biden’s failed agenda.
It’s a sad and scary sight because the American people deserve more and so much is at stake. Even scarier because she just didn’t fall out of that coconut tree.
Kamala Harris has been a public servant for most of her adult life, and she’s been VP for four years, but she’s nowhere on an issue of existential national importance.
These are points I brought to her alleged counselor. (I’d be shocked if she actually listens to him over, say, leftist Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but work with me here.) He counters that I’m asking too much of her.
“She didn’t intend to be the nominee,” he says. “So she didn’t have to start making her own stuff until a month ago.
“She wants it right. And there’s no need to rush it. She wants to do it the right way.”
Or maybe, my friend, she is just ignorant. Remember: she sat by and supported all of Joe Biden’s spending sprees that gave us massive inflation, forcing the Fed to raise interest rates and possibly trigger a recession.
Maybe that’s what you’ll get when your running mate is elected in 2020, not because she was great in the primaries — she was awful when she ran — but because she fit the party’s intersectionality agenda.
Maybe it’s not someone with the bandwidth to run the country.
DEI defense
There’s an interesting Bloomberg column I came across that defended diversity equity and inclusion—a management theory that sets rigid standards for employment based on race, gender, and gender identification.
Once everyone is outraged, several large companies are dropping the so-called DEI for reasons ranging from lack of fairness to impediments to productivity to its questionable legality.
Yet the author of the piece argues that there is scientific evidence that DEI is actually a better form of meritocracy.
Here’s a key paragraph: “Racially diverse juries deliberate more thoughtfully. Politically diverse debate teams prepare more diligently. Mixed-gender teams of scientists are more likely to make breakthroughs. . .”
There are some valid reasons to support diversity, but “science” is not one of them, as I point out in my new book “Go Woke Go Broke.”
According to Robin Ely and David Thomas, two real researchers who have studied the “diversity is great for business” argument:
“The research highlighting the link was conducted by consulting firms and financial institutions and did not pass muster when subjected to scientific scrutiny.”