Kamala Harris, A Case for Socialism
Since 2008, when I was twenty years old and fully committed to Barack Obama, I have not been enthusiastic about the Democratic nominee for president. By his second term, the fervor had subsided as his liberalism's limitations became apparent. I've now shifted to the left and started to view voting as a duty rather than an activity that I look forward to. I realized that my only option was to hold my nose and vote Democrat even after Senator Bernie Sanders was defeated by Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2016. I repeated it for Joe Biden four years later. I finally have a request for the party, even if I'm bracing myself for the same tedious exercise this year. I won't cast my ballot for an 81-year-old guy who last week was unable to respond to a simple question regarding abortion. Instead, give me Kamala Harris.
I would have written a different essay if Sanders were ten years younger, but he isn't, and he still plays a significant role in the Senate. Really, we don't have many options. Even if Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, is hardly the great hope of the American left, she is an excellent politician with a bright future for the country. She has never won a national race, though, and her name is not well known outside of her native state. For the most part, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has the same disadvantages. Therefore, Harris has a partially clinical case. She is recognizable. She has served on a ticket that defeated Donald Trump in the past, so she may brag about her democratic legitimacy. She is also "within striking distance" of the former president, according to a recent CNN poll, suggesting that a change might not significantly hurt Democratic chances.
I would still rather have Biden's vice president over Trump, even if I don't think the Democratic Party will be the only factor in the labor movement's ability to recruit more Americans. There's no reason to believe she would perform worse than Biden in terms of labor. She would likely adopt Biden's generally progressive economic views, in my opinion. (They're not flawless, but they're still considerably better than what President Trump would deliver.) Although the administration has not gone above and above in absolving the country of its student loan debt, Harris's previous Pell Grant proposal still seems unimaginable given how drastically the discourse has shifted.
Furthermore, supporting her would be endorsing an administrative state that places a higher priority on economic advancement than on tax breaks for the wealthy.
Deep-seated resentment at Biden, his advisors, and even his family—who allegedly encouraged him to continue running—is another thing that drives me. I can somewhat see how humiliated he must have felt following the debate on Thursday. However, he is the president, not a family member or friend, and it is not my responsibility as a voter, much less a journalist, to appease him. I believe it is improbable that he is up to the presidency, one of the most challenging positions a person might aspire to, if he isn't capable of competing with Trump in a debate. Because his advisers have shielded him from the public and media for the most part, it is hard to believe in him or them when the party maintains its insistence on his fitness. We're all aware of what happened on Thursday, and contrary to what a DNC email claimed, there's no need for alarm over "bedwetting." The implication that the Biden we saw last week is somehow better than Harris is insulting not only to Harris but also to the average voter's intelligence.
0 Comments