Democrats, in substituting a lucid 59-year-old for a fading 81-year-old, also replaced a career pragmatist with a lifelong left-wing ideologue.
Vice President Kamala Harris, now that she is the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, should be forced to answer for her decades of extremist positions on foreign policy, race, abortion, and the environment, among others. Does she still hold these views? If not, what changed her mind?
Harris, by some measures, was the leftmost member of the Senate, even more extreme than avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and the least bipartisan Democrat in her brief stint there. She co-sponsored a bill to socialize all healthcare in America (“Medicare for All,” they call it) and explicitly said private insurance should be illegal. Under fire, she moderated, saying she might tolerate a private insurance industry co-existing in her favored socialized healthcare scheme.
Her environmentalist record is also extremist. “There’s no question,” Harris stated in 2019. “I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking is the most important part of American energy exploration, which has been the single greatest check on Biden-Harris inflation. Her extremist view would not only make us dependent on Russia, Venezuela, or the Middle East for oil and gas, but it would also wreck our economy.
The Green New Deal is a radical agenda aimed not only at replacing all reliable energy with renewables but at reshaping our entire society into a utopian left-wing dreamworld. Harris, of course, was one of 11 original co-sponsors, placing her at the left end of the party.
On abortion, Harris is an absolutist and a zealot. She vehemently refuses to grant any rights to the unborn at any stage in fetal development. She co-sponsored a bill to legalize abortion “without limitations.” She prosecuted a pro-life activist for exposing Planned Parenthood’s trade in human body parts.
“Radical” is an apt word for Harris’s activism. She raised money for arrested rioters whose politics she supported. As riots raged in the summer of 2020, with fire and property damage and violent threats, Harris cheered them on.
On immigration, she argued that illegal entry shouldn’t be a crime and blamed the border crisis on vague “root causes” besides her administration’s own pointless and clueless policies.
She has signaled her Israel position by boycotting the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, aligning herself with the likes of far-left Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) rather than the mainstream of her party.
We grant that politicians evolve their views. Sometimes they grow up and grow wiser. Sometimes changing circumstances dictate changing positions. Sometimes what makes sense for a lawmaker doesn’t translate to an executive.
So Harris should be allowed to explain the extreme views she has articulated or indicated over the years. To that end, every journalist who has the opportunity should ask her about these stances that are way outside the mainstream.
Would she try to socialize medicine? Would she try to outlaw private health insurance? Would she ban fracking? Would she fight to keep third-trimester abortion legal? Does she support the arson of 2020 as a legitimate expression of dissatisfaction? Does she regret her administration’s early immigration actions? What, exactly, does she think Israel ought to do with Hamas?
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
If she still holds her extreme views, it would be a service to the electorate to bring that to light. In fact, it would be a service to Democrats to bring it to light before the delegates vote in Chicago next month.
And if she has changed her mind, which we hope she has, she should explain her evolution. Even then, her long record of radicalism will make any moves toward the center almost impossible to believe.