Harris: a stealth Sanders. Why Kamala Harris’s Stealth Radicalism Is Worse Than Bernie Democrats’ Open Radicalism.
A thought police White House essentially run by Harris, while being portrayed as 'moderate' compared to the open socialism of Bernie Sanders, will be no less radical or dangerous.
There are three certainties in life: Death is constant and absolute, sequels are almost always worse, and the Democrat establishment expects Joseph Robinette Biden to be a one-term (or less) president to pave the way for a “historic” female “leader of the free world.”
Liberals are very fond of superficial history-making. Their list could be anything from the first African-American president to the first non-binary demi-sexual paraplegic otherkin president. Now, doing that electorally might face a tiny problem, namely, the American people might not prefer the chosen female candidate.
So the only other way is to put someone in the VP spot who will graciously accept the burden when old Biden is pushed out, bows out, or worse. As inevitable as thunder after lightning, therefore, Biden picked Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential candidate.
So, what sort of a VP candidate will Harris be? This is a million-dollar question, since essentially this is a Harris-Biden ticket. Harris is the presidential candidate on this ticket in all but name. There is no question the main force behind this projected administration is and will be Harris, not Biden. Given her personality plus her youth and energy compared to Biden’s, she will likely be a huge factor in all major domestic decisions and even some foreign ones.
Unlike Biden, however, Harris will be the one getting all the fawning coverage, from her wardrobe choices to how “stunning and brave” she is. In a complete memory hole, it will be forgotten that she cynically accused Biden of being a racist and then laughed it off in private. Indeed, by her own “Believe Women” standards displayed during the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, she has now joined the team of a sexual predator. It is imperative therefore to contextualize her real ambition and capability from her rhetoric.
The fact of the matter is this: The potential Harris administration will be one of the most contradictory in the history of the modern United States. Throughout her failed presidential campaign, Harris tried to have it both ways, alternating between the smoldering thousand-yard stare of a trailblazing woman who “needs or fears no man,” to the wavering and wincing candidate withered by attacks from rivals like Tulsi Gabbard, to her routinely off-putting and artificial laughter (usually at her own “jokes”).
Politics is inherently performative, and American politics even more so, so one can understand the carefully crafted stage performance. But it’s not just her demeanor and tone — her policies are also a tangled nest of contradictions.
Harris opposes “authoritarian” Donald Trump on a ticket to “bring back normalcy,” but is herself likely to be the most authoritarian president in history. She says her potential executive actions include legislation to stop Big Pharma profiteering, unitary action on gun checks, a diktat to pass the Green New Deal, term limits on Supreme Court Justices, unliteral criminal procedures and incarceration reforms including massive amnesty for criminals in jail, censorship on social media, and using presidential powers to make drugs cheaper by snatching away patents from pharmaceutical companies.
Given the very real potential for a Republican minority in Congress, Harris may well be on course to coerce Biden to ram through all of these. She will likely have the opportunity to play the simultaneous parts of enforcer as well as the liberator, stabilizer as well as insurgent.
In reality, Harris is the swampiest of swampers and her elevation signifies a victory of the Democratic woke liberal establishment over the actual Bernie-Tulsi insurgents. Despite her terrible performance in a crowded primary field, Harris is a far better vice presidential pick than her two likely finalists, the shamelessly status-seeking Stacey Abrams and the foul-mouthed and incompetent Susan Rice.
Harris does possess a degree of administrative experience, although there’s no evidence she believes half of the things she says. Her cynicism, however, is a political gift and the reason she is so dangerous. Her administration, while superficially portrayed as “moderate” compared to the sledgehammer Sovietism of Bernie Sanders, will be no less radical.
Radicalism in stealth, with the administrative power to back it up, is often far more dangerous than open insurgency. Compare the quiet but rapid totalitarian changes happening just north of the border in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, to the linguistically challenged 1960s socialism rhetoric of Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom.
As for Harris’s law enforcement background, true conservatives historically supported strong law and order, from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan, and even during Bill Clinton’s tough on crime days. To suddenly change to criticize that now just to oppose Harris will not win over any moderates or suburbanites who are rightfully worried about civil unrest and burning cities. The concern should not be that she’s a strict law-enforcer, the concern is what selective laws will she be enforcing.
Will she, for instance, take on the Antifa and other domestic left-wing radicals? Or, will she focus on feminism in college campuses and censorship on social media? Conservatives would do far better if they point out that Kamala will probably not be tough on real crimes, such as violence, riots, and arson, but she will most certainly be active in the burgeoning neo-Marxist field of “thought-crime.”
The woke establishment wants social change from within, from school curricula to seizing guns, to Title IX and campus feminism. That is what makes them stealthy and far more dangerous than Sanders. That trend is set to continue with Harris in such a prominent position and with such a large microphone.
Unfortunately, the Obama-Obama-Trump working-class voters don’t look to gain anything from a Biden-Harris administration. A return to the status quo is essentially a return to a world where the rich signal their virtues while the working class continues to be hammered by low-skill migration, stifling totalitarian campus-culture, civil unrest, and performative anti-patriotism. The much-vaunted return to “normalcy” will therefore also be a reversal to a world that has long passed so many Americans by.
Author: Sumantra Maitra is a doctoral researcher at the University of Nottingham, UK, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. His research is in great power-politics and neorealism. He also writes for Quillette, Providence Magazine, Spectator US, The Telegraph, Claremont Review of Books, International Affairs, Washington Examiner, and other publications. You can find him on Twitter @MrMaitra
Read full article on THE FEDERALIST