Views: 5
CHICAGO – As she accepted the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party on Aug 22, US Vice-President Kamala Harris promised to keep “the people” she once represented in court at the centre of her policies.
Ms Harris, who began her career as a prosecutor from California, seemed to be reprising that role in national politics in a 40-minute address in Chicago’s cavernous United Centre arena, which resounded with roaring applause from the party faithful.
But there were not enough details in her arguments to convince undecided voters; and she leaned once too often on criticising her opponent to enhance her own appeal.
Ms Harris, 59, made the case by leveraging her humble beginnings as a child raised by a single mother in a rental flat to encourage the voters to trust her to deliver on promises she has made to make their life better.
“The middle class is where I come from,” she said, contrasting herself with her billionaire opponent Donald Trump, whom she painted as an untrustworthy and dangerous choice.
“In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man,” she said in the first of 15 references to him by name in her speech. “But the consequences of putting Donald Trump back in the White House are extremely serious.”
She cast him as a self-centred person who would reward his billionaire friends with tax cuts. She reminded the voters that he had “fanned the flames” of the Jan 6 Capitol riots in 2021, and that he had refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power when he lost the 2020 election.
“Just imagine Donald Trump with no guard rails,” she said. “How he would use the immense powers of the presidency of the United States. Not to improve your life. Not to strengthen our national security. But to serve the only client he has ever had: himself.”
While her criticisms of Trump were pointed, there was a puzzling lack of specifics in her speech on the two top issues for many voters: the spike in the prices of daily necessities, from gas to groceries, and the influx of illegal immigrants across the southern border.
“As president, I will bring together labour and workers, small business owners and entrepreneurs and American companies to create jobs, grow our economy, and lower the cost of everyday needs like healthcare, housing and groceries,” she said in a sweeping declaration.
On the ill-policed border that has allowed millions to enter the country illegally, she blamed Trump for inciting congressional Republicans to withhold support for a broad-ranging border security legislation.
The law would have empowered the president to close the border when illegal crossings reach an average of 4,000 a day for more than seven days.
Even if convention speeches are not expositions of policy, vague promises were hardly the best way for a presidential candidate to inspire confidence in Americans saying they know little about her.
It was an opening for Trump, who pounced soon after her speech was over. “Kamala’s biography won’t lower prices at the Grocery Store, or at the Pump!” he wrote on Truth Social in his usual style of capping random words.
But on these complex issues that defy easy solutions, specificity is not necessarily of advantage, according to analysts who said it might expose her to more attacks.
“The question is how long she can prolong the honeymoon and get away with not answering questions, which is exactly what I would recommend to her,” said Dr Louis Perron, a political strategist and author of the new book Beat The Incumbent: Proven Strategies And Tactics To Win Elections.
Ms Harris was at her clearest when it came to foreign policy, which matters less than domestic issues in elections.
She drew from President Joe Biden’s playbook in promising that she would “strengthen, not abdicate” America’s global leadership.
The contrast was with the unilateralist Trump, who in his first term pressured allies to pay more for collective defence, pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, and let arms control agreements lapse.
More specifically, Ms Harris promised to “stand strong with Ukraine and our Nato allies” and renewed the now-routine pledge to ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century”.
On the Gaza war, an issue that is a deal-breaker for young voters and the Arab American community, Ms Harris sounded forceful.
But she did not go beyond what she has already said: That she would “always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself” and that the scale of human suffering in Gaza was “heartbreaking”.
Still, it might cheer those voters who are weighing her against Trump’s clear pro-Israel stance.
In the same breath, she also castigated Trump for “cosying up to tyrants and dictators” such as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Americans, however, do not vote on foreign policy issues unless the country is in the middle of a war.
But Ms Harris could have been trying to prove she can be an effective commander-in-chief in a country that has not had a female in that role. She stressed that she was in the room whenever key decisions were made in the Biden White House.
In what seemed to be a strategic omission, the daughter of immigrants from India and Jamaica made no mention of the historic nature of her run, which might end up with her being not only the first woman, but also the first black woman and the first Asian American, to be elected president.
Possibly her most credible promise was to be a unifier.
“I will be a president who unites us around our highest aspirations. A president who leads and listens, who is realistic, practical and has common sense,” she said.
That might not sound particularly visionary, and Trump also spoke of healing the deeply divided country at the Republican National Convention in July. But it rang truer for Ms Harris, the nominee of the diverse Democratic Party.
At least one voter had no doubts on that score.
“The quick support of her candidacy by a wide range of people gives me cause to believe that this country has not totally lost its moral compass,” said Mrs Hyacinth Douglas-Bailey, an independent voter of Jamaican descent.
“Her international heritage was an asset,” she said, “that enabled her to bring a nuanced perspective to the presidency.”
STRAITSTIMES