In a democratic system, politics is often shaped by ideological affiliations. Politicians typically align themselves with specific ideologies and present their stances on critical issues affecting society and the nation. With their ultimate goal being to win elections, this pursuit sometimes necessitates a slight deviation from their established ideological paths. By doing so, they can appeal to a broader segment of the population. A recent example of this deliberate flexibility was evident in Vice President Kamala Harris's August 30th interview with Dana Bash of the CNN. Known for her rigid views on climate change and immigration, Harris appeared more willing to adapt and show flexibility, revealing a more pragmatic side. This shift in demeanour can transform the public's perception of her, showcasing a presidential candidate who was willing to evolve beyond her previously steadfast leftist stance. It seemed that Harris was learning the ropes fast as the 2024 United States presidential election approaches.�
In a predictable move, Donald Trump dismissed Kamala Harris's interview as "boring", yet his brevity spoke volumes. It was evident that Trump's campaign to paint Harris as inflexible had just become more complicated, as her willingness to adapt and show pragmatism had thrown a wrench into their strategy. How Trump's team will navigate this new dynamic remains to be seen, but we won't have to wait long for answers - the September 10th debate on ABC is just around the corner. Before we look ahead to that pivotal moment, let's take a closer look at how Kamala Harris performed in her highly anticipated interview, and what it might reveal about her evolving approach.
Kamala Harris's August 30th interview revealed two notable shifts in her stance. Firstly, she softened her position on "fracking", a method of extracting shale oil that involves high-pressure water injection, which environmentalists criticize for contaminating groundwater and causing seismic disturbances.�Harris had previously advocated for banning fracking, but now appears to recognize its role in keeping US oil prices in check, unlike Western Europe, which is grappling with high prices due to the ban on Russian oil imports following the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Secondly, on immigration, Harris nuanced her stance on illegal border crossings from maintaining in 2019 that such acts should be decriminalised to acknowledging to Bash that such actions should have consequences, within the existing legal framework.�This strategic adjustment may be aimed at appealing to a broader segment of the population, potentially boosting her electoral prospects.
�Harris also showed her political skills by adeptly sidestepping a trap set by Trump, who had accused her of falsely claiming to be "fully" Black to garner broader electoral support, despite her mixed South Asian heritage. When questioned by Bash, Harris dismissed the issue with a simple "old playbook," signalling her strategy for navigating Trump's attacks in the upcoming debate. By refusing to engage with Trump's personal jabs, Harris may emerge victorious. This approach also requires her to resist retaliating with similar attacks, such as labelling Trump a "convicted felon," no matter how tempting. Engaging in such tactics would only provide Trump with an opportunity to counterattack, a scenario he would likely relish.
During the interview, Harris addressed several key issues, particularly the country's economic challenges, including high inflation. She indicated that she would continue to follow President Bidens policies. As for her own initiatives, she proposed a $25,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers and expressed support for extending the child tax credit for young families. When questioned about why these credits hadn't been extended earlier, given their time in office, she emphasized that tackling urgent economic issues like reducing inflation and lowering insulin costs for seniors had taken precedence. On foreign policy, she reiterated her stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict, affirming Israel's right to self-defence and the Palestinians' right to peaceful living.
�
Regarding foreign policy there was however one notable omission: the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Despite the significance of this issue, Dana Bash failed to inquire about Harris's stance on the matter. This oversight is striking, given Trump's firm position on ending the war and how heavily the American tax payer is invested in the matter. It raises questions about whether Bash deliberately avoided the topic or simply overlooked it. Regardless, this incident highlights a persistent problem in democracies: media bias. CNN's lenient treatment of Harris suggests a tilt in her favour, just as Fox News is likely to go easy on Donald Trump.�
To ensure a comprehensive understanding of presidential candidates' positions on critical issues, it's essential for them to face tough questioning from news channels across the ideological spectrum. This would provide the American public with a clearer understanding of each candidate's stance on pressing matters.
As the September 10th debate approaches, the Trump campaign team's strategy is becoming increasingly clear. They must adopt a two-pronged approach: galvanizing their core support base while also appealing to swing voters. To energize their base, they should emphasize Trump's unwavering stance on abortion, which unlike what the liberal media may like to project still resonates with many young women in America. Additionally, they should focus on immigration at the southern border and Trump's position on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, which has gained traction. However, to win over swing voters, Trump must address their concerns about his commitment to democratic traditions. He needs to reassure them that he will uphold the country's values while still addressing their concerns on immigration and abortion. By adopting a more nuanced approach, like Kamala Harris's recent one eighty degrees policy shifts on fracking and immigration, Trump can broaden his appeal. �
Crucially, Trump must heed the advice of his campaign experts and avoid deviating from their strategy, which has often led to self-inflicted damage. Trump's tendency to deviate from the issues and indulge in personal attacks and outbursts may have devastating consequences on September 10th. His inability to maintain a composed and focused demeanour, instead opting for petty remarks and emotional reactions, risks overshadowing his policy positions and alienating undecided voters.�
Ultimately, a pragmatic and measured approach, not ideology, wins elections.
