The Wall Street Journal has just published an opinion piece by Peggy Noonan, titled “Kamala Harris Is an Artless Dodger”. In it, she describes the presidential race between Vice President Harris and former President Donald Trump as “awful vs. empty”.
I couldn’t have said that better.
This race is between a thin-skinned egomaniacal serial bloviator and a cackling flyweight, serial liar, who has changed her positions on major issues without explanation and apparently is terrified to an actual press conference where she might be forced to go beyond the memorized scripts she barfs out to friendly “interviewers”.
Here is a particularly salient segment:
Joe Biden stepped aside, and Ms. Harris was elevated, two months ago. That is enough time at least to start making clear what she believes, wants and means to do. She hasn’t.
This week she couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a single question straight, and people could see it. She is an artless dodger.
In her unscripted 11-minute interview with ABC’s Philadelphia station on Tuesday, the reporter asked, meekly, for “one or two specific things you have in mind” to get prices down.
Mr. Harris: “Well, I’ll start with this: I grew up a middle-class kid. My mother raised my sister and me. She worked very hard. She was able to finally save up enough money to buy our first house when I was a teenager. I grew up in a community of hardworking people, you know, construction workers and nurses and teachers. And I try to explain to some people who may not have had the same experience, you know, if—but a lot of people will relate to this. You know, I grew up in a neighborhood of folks who were very proud of their lawn, you know? And I was raised to believe and to know that all people deserve dignity, and that we as Americans have a beautiful character, you know, we have ambitions and aspirations and dreams. But not everyone necessarily has access to the resources that can help them fuel those dreams and ambitions. So when I talk about building an opportunity economy, it is very much with the mind of investing in the ambitions and aspirations and the incredible work ethic of the American people . . .” On it went, with a few policy ideas tacked on at the end.
Also from the interview: “Focusing on, again, the aspirations and the dreams but also just recognizing that at this moment in time, some of the stuff we could take for granted years ago, we can’t take for granted anymore.” “And so my approach is about new ideas, new policies that are directed at the current moment, and also to be very honest with you, my focus is very much on what we need to do over the next ten, twenty years. To catch up to the 21st century around, again, capacity but also challenges.”
This is word-saying gibberish. Only when speaking of her personal biography does she seem authoritative. Otherwise she is airy, evasive, nonresponsive.
And one other:
Why does she dodge away from clarity? Why doesn’t she take opportunities to deepen public understanding of her thinking?
Here are some guesses, one or more of which may be correct.
• Because she’s not that interested in policy. This would be strange, because politics is the policy business; that’s what politicians make. But she forged her political life in California, where politics is an offshoot of its other great industry, show business. It is possible that she views policy as just something you have to do to advance your personal standing and enjoy being on top. It is clear she has memorized certain position points (help small businesses) that have perhaps been urged on her by professionals who do politics for a living.
• Because she’ll figure it out later. Specificity divides while sentiment gathers.
• Because she doesn’t want you to understand where she stands. Because she’s more progressive than she admits, and there’s no gain in telling you now.
• Because at bottom she’s as progressive as Joe Biden, meaning as progressive as the traffic will bear. But that would mean she’s more of the same, so why talk about it?
As for Trump (keeping in mind that Noonan has never been a supporter)?
Awful is—well, awful. But he was president for four years, we didn’t all explode, institutions held, the threatened Constitution maintained.
This is an excellent piece, unsparing for either candidate. I urge you to use the link I’ve provided (here it is again) and read every word.
