A Woman’s Perspective: Evaluating Kamala Harris and Her Policies
We're not all taken in by a female candidate
As a woman navigating the complexities of today's political landscape, it’s essential to critically evaluate the policies proposed and implemented by our leaders and avoid falling into emotional traps or spasms. Many on the traditional right would argue that this evaluation should be undertaken regardless of considerations such as sex and gender - but I argue, emphatically, that sex matters immensely in modern politics.
The Democrats have taken to a strategy of labeling Trump and J.D. Vance as ‘weird’ at every possible opportunity. This strategy, as pointed out by other dissident writers such as Scott Greer, is designed to put pressure on female voters. Most women desire to be ‘normal’ and to fit into the acceptable social mold and the strategy is working. Harris has gained almost 8 points among women since becoming the Democratic nominee and a majority of American women now support her candidacy for president.
Kamala Harris, the first female Vice President of the United States, is supposed to represent a significant milestone for women. She shattered yet another glass ceiling and advanced the cause of women everywhere, or so we are constantly told. The media never covers the fact she had an intimate relationship with her first boss, then mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown. The media also doesn’t delve into Harris prosecuting a mentally ill woman (who later won a case against the city) or when Harris wrongfully convicted a man - a mistake that cost California taxpayers $13 million.
Still, it is also important to assess her policies and their implications with a discerning eye. This article explores some concerns that women, like myself, might have regarding Harris’s policy decisions and their broader impact on our lives.
Economic Policies: A Double-Edged Sword
One area of concern is Harris’s economic policy, particularly her approach to issues like inflation, price gouging, and housing.
One of Harris’s key proposals has been a promised federal ban on grocery price gauging. This is a fantastic proposal in a vacuum but is not something that Mrs. Harris can reasonably expect to deliver on. The few large corporations that control the American food chain regularly deal with court cases related to price-fixing on anti-trust grounds. In fact, these major corporations, such as Tyson, just settled out of a court case that alleged price fixing. The details of this settlement have not been made public and I would dare to say that it will not involve lower prices for consumers.
Harris has also promised to give first-time home buyers $25,000 towards downpayments on mortgages. As a mother, I found this instinctively appealing. I have teenage children who are about to enter the world and begin ‘adulting’ as they would say. I love the idea of a helping hand to get them on the property ladder, but what Harris proposes will only worsen the situation.
Harris herself has acknowledged this with her $40 billion plan to build three million new homes over the course of four years. But even if this were achieved it would only make the housing gap, estimated at about 7 million homes, smaller and would not solve the issue. By pouring $25,000 into the pocket of every first-time home buyer in the country during one of the worst housing cost crises in memory Harris will only inflate the cost of homes more and push housing out of reach for millions more Americans who might otherwise just barely be able to get onto the ladder.
A real solution to America’s growing housing crisis is to begin a policy of deportation and repatriation of as many people as practicable. More than 30 million or more illegal immigrants are believed to reside in the country, while tens of millions of legal immigrants, both visa holders and naturalized citizens, reside in this country under false pretenses.
Only by removing these tens of millions of immigrants, both illegal and (illegitimately) legal, can we begin to reduce pressure on the American housing market and lower prices.
Family Policy: Nothing More Than a Money Scheme?
Harris has made a serious litany of promises about restoring and expanding the child tax credit regime in the country. Not only does Harris want to restore the 2021 American Rescue Plan policy that gave parents $3,600 for children under 5 and $3,000 for children over five, but she wants to expand this. Harris has proposed a new credit where low and middle-income families would receive $6,000 during the first year of a child’s life.
While I am not inherently against the idea of giving a leg up to the parents of new children I must protest this policy in the current environment. Kamala Harris is proposing yet another wealth transfer from White families to non-White families. Most White Americans, when two parents in a household work, fall outside of what Pew Research considers middle income, while the vast majority of non-White families (except for Asian Americans) fall within the definition of low and middle income.
Criminal Justice Reform: Balancing Act Gone Wrong
Harris’s prosecutor background and subsequent shift toward criminal justice reform highlight a complex legacy. Her record is one of pushing for the most radical reforms possible while simultaneously attempting to appear ‘tough on crime’ as most Americans prefer their public officials to be.
Harris, who once voiced public support for the death penalty, refused to seek the penalty for a 21-year-old gang member who killed a San Francisco police officer while Harris served as the district attorney. She would then change her position in a later race, claiming she would enforce the death penalty where and when dictated by law.
Whether or not you support the death penalty (and this author is not entirely sure I do) it’s worrisome that a politician seeking the highest office in the land flip-flops on issues of criminal justice so often and seemingly to appeal to whatever crowd is in front of her at the moment.
Harris continued this flip-flopping later in her career. She once opposed body cameras for police, only to back them during the 2016 campaign. Harris also refused to release criminals from prison early as attorney general of California, though she now supports the ‘criminal justice reform' agenda that is leaving tens of thousands of dangerous, often violent, criminals in the streets.
At the same time Harris seemingly supports pouring criminals onto the street she has changed another position that angered most right-wing Americans. Harris claimed to support a mandatory gun buy-back program for assault weapons. Harris now claims she does not support such a program in any form, not even as a voluntary buyback.
Foreign Policy: Foreign to Most Americans
On issues of foreign policy Harris too has consistently flip-flopped, especially recently.
Harris was once said to support an arms embargo against the Israelis, a policy that would be supported by the vast majority of Americans who want no involvement in the conflict, especially militarily. Now, Harris seems to have stepped back from that policy and regularly praises the American alliance with Israel.
The Democrats are deeply internally divided over this key issue of foreign policy in a way that the American people simply are not. We do not support giving endless weapons, money, ammunition, and moral support to the Tel Aviv government.
Conclusion:
There are a great many more complaints I could level against Kamala Harris: such as her recent refusal to accept the label of ‘border czar’ despite the mainstream media having called her that for years as a member of the Biden administration.
One thing is clear, however: Kamala Harris and her policies will not be good for this country and are likely to develop in a much more negative direction than even those of Joe Biden.
Support White Papers’ mission to investigate and promote pro-White policies!
Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com
Buy us a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wppi
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wppi
Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750
Democracy is ultimately doomed. In the US, repealing the 19th amendment, which gave women the vote, would go some way to "preserving" it for a while -- as long as states banned women from voting.
But that would be impossible. "Progress," "democracy," "leftism," "universalism" or whatever label you choose, works as a one-way street, a kind of ratcheting mechanism. With a few notable and temporary exceptions, "progress" continues without real impediment from reaction, until finally the whole project ends in barbarism and despotism.
This is why choosing candidates is a fool's errand. The long-term solution does not involve voting. Democracy has never worked properly and cannot be made to work properly. The events of this century, in which democracy will disappear from the planet, will prove that decisively. We can only hope that it is not too bloody.