Vice President Kamala Harris won't release her official campaign policies. So we have to judge her on the basis of her past policies.
It is true that she adopted the most left-wing, radical ideas of any presidential candidate -- more radical than socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). It is also true that, as a local and state prosecutor, she occasionally adopted absurdly hard-line policies on particular issues, like school truancy, that exceeded anything a conservative prosecutor would have done.
The reality is that she has no particular moral core. She does what she thinks will get attention and advance her career. Her instincts are left -- far, far left -- but she is essentially just a power-hungry political climber.
Regardless, here are the craziest policies Harris has embraced, mostly on the far left and some on the far right.
1. Medicare for All. Harris adopted a fully socialist health care policy when she ran for president in 2019, thanking Sanders for pushing the idea. She flip-flopped on the idea of whether her policy would require ending the private health insurance industry, which cost her significant credibility with the public. She later claimed that there would be some role for private companies -- although if California's treatment of insurance companies is any indication, in practice what that would mean is setting price caps and regulations that force private insurance companies to close.
2. Green New Deal. Harris was a co-sponsor of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D-NY) sweeping legislation, which not only sought to ban fossil fuels but also to socialize the entire U.S. economy, issuing payments for those who were "unwilling" to work. Harris also said she would ban fracking -- a pledge her campaign is now working feverishly to deny as she courts voters in swing-state Pennsylvania -- and that she would ban plastic straws and consider limiting meat. There was no environmental policy too crazy for Harris, whose state suffers high energy costs and power shortages.
3. Open borders. Harris championed "sanctuary" policies in San Francisco and California. The so-called "border czar" -- a title she now claims she never had -- was in favor of letting anyone into the country, shutting down detention centers, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and giving free healthcare to illegal aliens. As Vice President, Harris was supposed to deal with the so-called "root causes" of migration, which were deemed to originate in Central America. She barely visited the border, and soon migrants were coming to America from all over the world.
4. Targeting truancy. As San Francisco District Attorney, and later as California Attorney General, Harris went after the parents of children who were missing school. She threatened parents, and some were even arrested (which, later, she falsely denied). The policy did little to stop truancy, but it had a massive, and negative, impact on black and Latino parents. This issue came up during Harris's presidential campaign in 2019, but has been memory-holed by Democrats.
5. Keeping non-violent offenders in prison. Then-Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) derailed Harris's campaign in 2019 by pointing out that she had locked up thousands of people for marijuana possession. But Harris's record is far worse. For many years, she resisted a Supreme Court order to release thousands of non-violent convicts from California prisons. One of her arguments was that the state needed the labor they provided. Meanwhile, Harris cut soft plea deals with violent criminals and refused to seek the death penalty for a cop killer. Later, she backed ending cash bail in California.
In sum: Harris is not a leader capable of governing. Her trademark is adopting radical ideas past the point of absurdity.
This is probably the biggest week of the election. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will face off in the first (and probably the only) presidential debate of 2024. It's also one of Harris's few unscripted appearances, raising the stakes.
What do I think will happen? I've been saying the debate doesn't matter -- that Harris's supporters will simply see the debate they want to see, and will focus on male/female dynamics. Trump supporters, too, will overlook any of his mistakes.
But Harris has a lot at stake. If she comes across in a presidential manner, she could shore up what looks (at the moment) to be slightly sagging support. If she fails, she will likely boost Trump's momentum. There won't be second chances.
Based on past debates, I think she will do fine. She has considerable presence onstage, and will come across as officious and dignified. She has no doubt been practicing her talking points and will deliver them. So I don't foresee collapse.
However, I have not been particularly impressed ...
This week's portion begins with Moses's instructions to the people to set up a judicial system in the Land of Israel. Moses given the people other instructions, including about monarchy, rules of war, relations among neighbors, and more.
There is the famous line: "Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live and possess the land the Lord, your God, is giving you." (16:20). That line is often misquoted as a justification for "social justice" -- often by people who are not terribly enthusiastic about modern-day Israel possessing the land of Israel.
We are so preoccupied with the adjective "social" that we forget about the noun "justice." There's no "social justice" in the Torah -- just "justice justice."
Justice is the noun, and justice is the adjective. Justice -- defined by what we deserve. If we do right, we deserve good; if we do wrong, we deserve evil, and only our prayers and repentance and charity can do anything about it.
...