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 week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
