Kamala Harris has yet to give an in-depth interview about how she plans to govern if elected in November.
In fact, with just over two months until the election, she has said nothing substantive.
This is especially true when it comes to the economy, a top concern for most voters.
Her campaign website does not list any major economic policy positions, and her campaign has not issued a clear statement on where it will stand on a range of issues, including taxes and fracking.
She talks about opposing food price gouging and preventing excessive profits, apparently unaware that there are already laws in place to do so and that such policies, if implemented, would lead to rationing and higher prices.
She has suggested that she wants to raise corporate tax rates and tax the wealthy more, as her boss did in the latest Budget. By how much? No one really knows.
Yet her economic advisory team is preaching the gospel of Kamala to anyone who will listen, including me, who was recently lectured at length by one of her top advisers.
This wise man assured me that despite Harris’ past support for all the left’s proposals (higher taxes, more regulation, Green New Deal subsidies), she would be a much more effective centrist president on the economy than Donald Trump.
Kamala is a closet moderate, she told me in a lengthy direct message exchange shortly before Harris spoke at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, a speech that was also (surprise!) devoid of policy content.
His reasoning? Well, I’ll quote him verbatim: “I’m one of her advisors, as is a list of really smart entrepreneurs. We’re not left wing. Damn, she was talking yesterday about policies that require a return on investment. Trump doesn’t know what ROI is anymore. LOL.”
I will not name my advisor, but he is someone I like and respect, a self-made millionaire entrepreneur, and I value his perspective.
But he is also completely delusional about Harris and the Democratic Party in general. Yes, he hates Trump, and for all the reasons people hate Trump, he thinks Donald would be a terrible president.
I have no idea
But for Trump haters who worry about the future and how average people will get by on a day-to-day basis, there’s no escaping this central truth: Harris has no idea how to run a $25 trillion economy.
If that were the case, we would have heard about it already. Instead, this is a candidacy based on atmosphere and theatrics that means nothing.
If Harris wins, her real advisers will be in power — the tax-and-spend types who crafted Biden’s failed policies.
This is a sad and horrifying scene because the American people deserve so much more and so much is at stake. What’s even more horrifying is that she didn’t just fall from that coconut tree.
Kamala Harris has been a public servant for most of her adult life, and served as vice president for four years, but has contributed nothing to the existential issues of our nation.
These are points I have raised with her supposed adviser (I would be shocked if she would actually listen to him over left-leaning Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, but hear me out here.) He counters that I am asking too much of her.
“She was never going to be a candidate,” he told me, “so she didn’t have to start doing what she wanted until a month ago.”
“She wants to do it right, and there’s no reason to rush it. She wants to do it the right way.”
Or, my friend, maybe she is just ignorant. Remember, she has stood by and supported Joe Biden’s spending spree that has given us massive inflation, forced the Fed to raise interest rates and likely caused a recession.
Maybe the outcome of the 2020 vice president we get isn’t because she performed so well in the primaries, but because she was awful when running for the nomination, and because she fits the party’s intersectionality agenda.
Perhaps this person is not capable of running a country.
DEI Defense
I came across an interesting Bloomberg column defending diversity, equity and inclusion, a management theory that sets strict standards for hiring based on race, sex and gender identity.
Once all the rage, large companies are increasingly abandoning so-called DEI for a variety of reasons, including a lack of equity, hindering productivity, and questionable legality.
However, the article’s authors argue that there is scientific evidence that DEI is actually a better form of meritocracy.
Here’s the key paragraph: “Racially diverse jurors deliberate more thoughtfully. Politically diverse debate teams prepare more diligently. Mixed-gender teams of scientists are more likely to produce breakthroughs…”
There are good reasons to support diversity, but as I point out in my new book, Go Woke Go Broke, “science” is not one of them.
According to two real researchers, Robin Elley and David Thomas, who have studied the claim that “diversity is great for business”:
“The studies making this claim have been conducted by consulting firms and financial institutions, but they fall flat when subjected to academic scrutiny.”
