Is Harris really a moderate?

[ThatRobGuy]

That seems to be the impression most people have, but I have some concerns about some of her positions...
(as I assume even some staunch Democrats do, thus the reason some of the low support numbers during the primaries)

Being someone who's lived in the Eastern half of the country, I admittedly didn't have much exposure to Harris or her policies prior to her getting more mainstream attention.

...but I see a few things that are rather concerning (and should be concerning for members of either party) that fall in line with that I've been discussing in some other threads, which is the aspect of "if things don't move fast enough, I'm going to try to make it move with swift authoritarian actions"

The first aspect, and the one I find most concerning, is this...
Harris 'open' to adding seats to Supreme Court
...her openness to "court-packing", which is something FDR tried to do back in the day, and is nothing more than a cheap attempt to manipulate the supreme court to get a SCOTUS-majority on "your side"

Her statements during the primaries (which actually were aimed at contradicting Biden) regarding gun control, in which she said "I'll give congress 100 days to pass something, and if they don't, I'll handle it through executive order"

She also gives off a vibe of opportunism...and has for a large portion of her career based on reading up on her history. A person who had no problem locking up a lot of low-level drug offenders to make a name for herself throughout her tenure as a prosecutor is a shining example of that. ...as well as the fact that when she thought it would score brownie points, being one of the people who was willing to jump on-board with Biden's accuser in order to target what was, at the time, a rival...as well as the comments she made about him having affiliations with racists

If she truly felt that way, accepting a VP selection from a person like that would be the furthest thing from her mind.


This sort of ties in with prior theories that many folks have shared...which is that, is this the person that the DNC actually wanted, and they just pushed Biden because he's perceived as a "non-threatening moderate", and then banking on the fact that he won't finish his first term and she'll get to be president (but didn't have the appeal to make it through the primaries)?

The idea of trying to be opportunistic, step on people, "if congress doesn't do what I want, I'll just try to do it through executive power", and doing a 180 when it's politically convenient sounds a lot like another president we currently have...only difference being, her agenda is in-line with the far-left progressive movement.

Is this another case of the "impatience" I've referred to in other threads..."these social justice issues aren't getting solved fast enough by working within the system, so it's time to change the system" sort of mentality?

Thoughts?

 

[JackRT]

In Canada Harris would be termed a Conservative so in the USA she would be a Moderate for sure.

 

[tz620q]

Thoughts?

You might check out this article titled "Kamala Harris is no Moderate"

 

[JackRT]

You might check out this article titled "Kamala Harris is no Moderate"

I have read her curriculum vitae and I am most impressed with her achievements in all three levels of government. As a VP she would not be just a cardboard cut out.

 

[Kentonio]

She’s both a moderate (in the meaning of centrist) and opportunistic. In normal times I wouldn’t want her anywhere near the White House, but hey these aren’t normal times.

 

[cow451]

That seems to be the impression most people have, but I have some concerns about some of her positions...
(as I assume even some staunch Democrats do, thus the reason some of the low support numbers during the primaries)

Being someone who's lived in the Eastern half of the country, I admittedly didn't have much exposure to Harris or her policies prior to her getting more mainstream attention.

...but I see a few things that are rather concerning (and should be concerning for members of either party) that fall in line with that I've been discussing in some other threads, which is the aspect of "if things don't move fast enough, I'm going to try to make it move with swift authoritarian actions"

The first aspect, and the one I find most concerning, is this...
Harris 'open' to adding seats to Supreme Court
...her openness to "court-packing", which is something FDR tried to do back in the day, and is nothing more than a cheap attempt to manipulate the supreme court to get a SCOTUS-majority on "your side"

Her statements during the primaries (which actually were aimed at contradicting Biden) regarding gun control, in which she said "I'll give congress 100 days to pass something, and if they don't, I'll handle it through executive order"

She also gives off a vibe of opportunism...and has for a large portion of her career based on reading up on her history. A person who had no problem locking up a lot of low-level drug offenders to make a name for herself throughout her tenure as a prosecutor is a shining example of that. ...as well as the fact that when she thought it would score brownie points, being one of the people who was willing to jump on-board with Biden's accuser in order to target what was, at the time, a rival...as well as the comments she made about him having affiliations with racists

If she truly felt that way, accepting a VP selection from a person like that would be the furthest thing from her mind.


This sort of ties in with prior theories that many folks have shared...which is that, is this the person that the DNC actually wanted, and they just pushed Biden because he's perceived as a "non-threatening moderate", and then banking on the fact that he won't finish his first term and she'll get to be president (but didn't have the appeal to make it through the primaries)?

The idea of trying to be opportunistic, step on people, "if congress doesn't do what I want, I'll just try to do it through executive power", and doing a 180 when it's politically convenient sounds a lot like another president we currently have...only difference being, her agenda is in-line with the far-left progressive movement.

Is this another case of the "impatience" I've referred to in other threads..."these social justice issues aren't getting solved fast enough by working within the system, so it's time to change the system" sort of mentality?

Thoughts?

She does seem to have a conservative streak. Thanks for the information.

 

[cow451]

She’s both a moderate (in the meaning of centrist) and opportunistic. In normal times I wouldn’t want her anywhere near the White House, but hey these aren’t normal times.

She appears to be looking for an opportunity to kick Trump’s behind.

 

[JackRT]

She appears to be looking for an opportunity to kick Trump’s behind.

If those two ever debated she would chew him up and spit him out.

 

[cow451]

If those two ever debated she would chew him up and spit him out.

Clearly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I have read her curriculum vitae and I am most impressed with her achievements in all three levels of government. As a VP she would not be just a cardboard cut out.

So locking up low level drug offenders (which happened to be disproportionately poor and minority) for purposes of career advancement, implying that she's willing to engage in court-packing, and basically dismissing the legislative branch by giving ultimatums along the lines of "if you don't pass legislation that I see fit within 100 days, then I'll just do it with executive order" are things you'd find impressive?

If the democrats win over Trump this time around (and there's a good chance that'll happen), she's not going to be VP for long. Biden's not going to serve out the entirety of his first term. 3-4 months in, he'll step down due to health issues, and she'll be running the show.

...and someone who says "if the congress doesn't do it my way, I'll issue executive orders" and "if the supreme court isn't ruling my way, I'll just add more seats and appoint new justices so that we have a majority in the SCOTUS" aren't redeeming qualities.

There's a separation of powers for a reason, there's supposed to be a balance there.

Based on her statements, she sounds like she'd just be a left-wing version of the person democrats claim to hate.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Clearly.

Yeah, but Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher would chew up most people and spit them out in a debate...would you want either of those two guys as your president?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The court-packing aspect is the thing that has me concerned...it sets a very bad precedent.

I can see our country in 2050...with 31 supreme court justices, simply because every time a president isn't getting their way in terms of policy, just add a few more so that you can give yourself a majority...then handle everything else with executive order.

She seems to be quite FDR'ish in terms of her views on the branches of government (meaning, executive branch uses blunt force to trample over the other branches)... Of course, FDR also had special camps for people who he viewed as a political threat in the name of "national security".

...perhaps that last bit was a bit "scaremonger'ish"...but with people with severe authoritarian leanings, there always has to be that concern. It's the main thing that concerns me about Trump. Willingness to declare "anyone who disagrees with me as a threat to freedom and national security" should always raise some red flags for people.

If someone is willing to suggest that we lock someone else up for reporting on them negatively (Trump) or willing to lock someone up for a non-violent drug offense to further their career (often times in very suspicious circumstances) (Harris)...that has to be a red flag.

 

[zippy2006]

That seems to be the impression most people have, but I have some concerns about some of her positions...
(as I assume even some staunch Democrats do, thus the reason some of the low support numbers during the primaries)

Govtrack.us rates Harris the 4th furthest left senator (link).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Govtrack.us rates Harris the 4th furthest left senator (link).

Their analysis just looks at which senators have sponsored/cosponsored bills together. It doesn't consider the content of the bills or political parties of the senators. It's a metric that can be used to analyze a politician's leanings, but far from definitive.

The data that goes into this analysis is a list of who sponsored or cosponsored which bills. The process doesn’t look at the content of the bills or the party affiliation or anything else about the Members of Congress, but it is able to infer underlying behavioral patterns, some of which correspond to real-world concepts like left-right ideology.

ETA: basically, her rating comes from the fact that she cosponsored almost no bills introduced by the Republicans. Some additional context:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ris-really-most-liberal-senator-trump-claims/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ell-us-about-members-congress-what-they-dont/

 

[zippy2006]

Their analysis just looks at which senators have sponsored/cosponsored bills together. It doesn't consider the content of the bills or political parties of the senators. It's a metric that can be used to analyze a politician's leanings, but far from definitive.

And it's a very accurate methodology for mapping political ideology. If you want a second opinion, the vote-based classification of VoteView also places Harris as one of the furthest left senators (link).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

And it's a very accurate methodology for mapping political ideology. If you want a second opinion, the vote-based classification of VoteView also places Harris as one of the furthest left senators (link).

It's accurate at showing bipartisanship, which often correlates to ideology. But I think an important consideration to make is that Harris has been planning to run for president since before she was elected to the Senate, so I think that's going to color both her voting record and sponsorship record. It's equally important to look at the platform proposals she made as a candidate, which were decidedly more moderate than her senate votes would otherwise indicate (for example, she signed off on Bernie's Medicare for All legislation, but as a candidate, she proposed a healthcare plan closer to Buttigieg's "Medicare for All Who Want It").

I don't know that there's sufficient evidence to define her as an extreme liberal or a moderate. It's equally likely that she's just an opportunist who will be whatever she thinks she needs to be.

 

[wing2000]

Within the Democratic party context, she is a moderate. Within the context of a U.S. Senate that has taken a hard right turn in recent years, she is a liberal.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Govtrack.us rates Harris the 4th furthest left senator (link).

Possibly a better metric is how often a senator votes in accordance with Trump's wishes. Harris is 7th least like Trump on that score. Of the less like Trump senators are Gillibrand, Warren, Sanders, and Booker, all of whom were presidential candidates this year. So on this sliding scale Harris is more moderate than they.

So for all the freakouts about Sanders and Warren, and all the meh about Booker, dial that back even more and that's where Kamala is.

Speaking as a Californian, I've watched her career with great interest and support from when she became Attorney General of the state. I would say her law&order credibility put her in more moderate or even conservative territory for California, which puts her more moderate or slightly liberal nationally. And while a lot of people on the extreme left don't like her for the law&order resume, and there may be a temptation to run away from it, I think she should step into it. Given how Daddy is playing favorites with the Justice department, maybe it's time for Mommy to step in and deliver spankings all round.

I'll be in my bunk. So will @GoldenBoy89.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'll be in my bunk. So will @GoldenBoy89.

Er, his own bunk. But a guy can dream.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have read her curriculum vitae and I am most impressed with her achievements in all three levels of government. As a VP she would not be just a cardboard cut out.

I think she defies pidgeonholing and many of her positions seem to have widespread appeal with the American public, judging by surveys. They ruffle conservatives and libertarians, perhaps, but I don't view that as inherently problematic.