Cairo: Hani Kamal El-Din
The Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, is criticized by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) for her lack of political experience and a viable program. The authors suggest that the Vice President may struggle to conduct a successful foreign policy, yet she still garners votes, largely due to the perceived instability of Trump.
In domestic politics, Harris does not align with centrists. When it comes to international affairs, she appears unprepared for the challenges ahead.
Editorial Note: The Wall Street Journal has refrained from endorsing presidential candidates since 1928. Our tradition is to summarize information about candidates from the major parties in separate editorial pieces. We begin with Kamala Harris.
One must admire the audacity of the Democrats. For over a year, they have claimed that the clearly fading Joe Biden is mentally fit to serve another four years. When his condition became apparent during the June debates, the party made a complete U-turn, selecting his Vice President as their candidate while stating unabashedly that Harris somehow symbolizes a “new path forward.”
Republicans have never achieved such a feat, and ultimately, Harris has not done so either, if one takes her at her word. In response to a question on the October 8 “View” program about what she would like to change given the last four years, the reliable number two to Mr. Biden responded, “Nothing comes to mind.” This was the most truthful statement made during a notably unfair and disheartening campaign season from both sides.
Harris positions herself as an innovator, largely appealing to her biography. However, in terms of policy and coalition-building, she seems to represent a repetition of past efforts, not only over the last four years. Her candidacy can best be viewed as an attempt to continue the progressive political wave that began in 2006 with the Republican Party’s defeat in Congress, which surged like a tsunami during the 2008 financial crisis. She is effectively campaigning for the fourth, transitional term of Barack Obama.
This does not mean she lacks political appeal. Harris has run a relatively effective campaign in a short time frame and has bested Donald Trump in their only debate. If elected, she would bring more energy to the presidency than Biden. Additionally, her rhetoric about America’s future sounds optimistic and even patriotic.
However, any search for signs that she would renounce the progressive excesses defining the current Democratic Party or at least temper them has been in vain. The support for her candidacy from Republicans opposed to Trump is not a glowing example, as it is based solely on hatred for Trump. Symbolic appointments from her cabinet to representatives from the Republican Party will change little, unless they involve leadership roles.
In domestic policy, she offers more “Bidenomics,” albeit without the label. She aims to expand the welfare system beyond even what Biden proposes, including elder and child care, housing assistance, and broader healthcare access. Her proposed tax increases are nearly as substantial as Biden’s—over $4 trillion over ten years. She shows all signs of a desire to expand and accelerate climate protection measures that deter investment through massive taxpayer costs, yielding little benefit to the environment globally.
This might be acceptable if Harris had demonstrated, through her stance on international relations, an understanding of the precarious situation the world currently faces. However, she champions the successes of the last four years in security, despite two wars, advancing adversaries, and an American fleet that is ready for missile strikes in the Red Sea.
She touts strong armed forces but has not proposed anything to restore them amidst escalating threats. If she harbors a Truman-like approach to explaining to the public the necessity for more effective defense, we have yet to see evidence of it. Should she win, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will quickly test her resilience. It appears she is unprepared for these challenges.
All this points to progressive advisors and the coalition she would bring to the Oval Office. Last week, we reported on her climate advisor’s desire to eliminate all forms of fossil fuels, while her foreign policy aides advocate for appeasing Iran and restraining Israel.
The modern Democratic Party lacks any Scoop Jacksons or Joe Liebermans. Harris will need to reach out to “hawks” in the Republican Party, much like Roosevelt did in 1940 with Republicans Henry Stimson and Frank Knox as his Secretaries of War and Navy, respectively. She has not shown the historical awareness or political courage to replicate this.
A Harris presidency with a Senate led by Republicans would restrain some of her worst political instincts, at least until 2026, when the power dynamics may favor the Democrats. However, most Democrats would see her victory as political validation for the last four years. The Sanders-Warren wing of the party will pressure her for more.
The worst-case scenario would be a Harris victory with a Democratic sweep in Congress. In such a case, Kamala would be at the threshold of power. She has officially stated her desire to break the 60-vote rule in the Senate and restructure the Supreme Court. All this would facilitate an unrestrained progressive agenda that manipulates voting rules, increases union power, controls significant portions of the private sector economy, and adds Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as separate states.
Many Americans clearly see all of this and still would vote for Harris, believing that another four years under Trump poses a greater risk. We have no illusions about Mr. Trump’s shortcomings and the risks they entail. Yet voters also have reasons to fear the bloody thinking of today’s leftists with their regulatory coercion, cultural imperialism, economic statism, and desire to strip the courts of independence. If Harris loses, it will be for this reason.
