One of the things that we need to be clear about Kamala Harris is that she is not a progressive. Her record is one of a centrist Democrat and that means that while she is not as ardent in Joe Biden in his uncritical embrace, both literally and metaphorically, of Israel and its extremist leader Benjamin Netanyahu, she has been a solid supporter. They paid lip service to a two-state solution while turning a blind eye to Israeli policies of expansion of annexation of Palestinian land that was making that solution no longer tenable. As long as there was no major turmoil, they could pay scant attention to how horribly that country was treating its Palestinian population.
The massacre that is taking place in Gaza that has caused worldwide condemnation has made that kind of silence untenable. Joe Biden made some half-hearted attempts to try and curb Israel’s excesses but Netanyahu scornfully and even insultingly rebuffed him. I was curious as to whether Harris would continue to do what she had to do as vice-president, which was to publicly support Biden’s non-action, or whether, now that she is the party leader in her own right, she would try to move in a different direction.
I was not expecting much, to be honest. Apart from a few outspoken critics (though encouragingly that number is growing), the Democratic party is loathe to be seen as criticizing Israel. But the real anger that is being displayed at the grass roots, especially during the campus protests, with many of the voices in support of the student protestors coming from Jewish faculty at those universities and groups like Jewish Voices for Peace, have given an opening for a slight shift and she seems to have taken it, albeit gingerly, in an effort to bring back support from young people and progressives who have been disgusted with Biden’s complicity in Israel’s crimes.
One sign was that she chose to not attend Netanyahu’s speech to the joint session of congress where he gave a hardline speech although, as vice-president, she would normally have co-chaired the session with the speaker of the house. Another was that after she later met privately with Netanyahu, she issued a statement that spoke of the need to end the carnage in Gaza.
Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has pressed Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu on the “dire” humanitarian situation in Gaza in talks that she described as frank, adding “I will not be silent.”
In comments that were closely watched for signs of a shift from Joe Biden’s policy approach, the US vice-president said after the meeting: “What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating. The images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time.”
She acknowledged that “Israel has a right to defend itself” and denounced Hamas as a brutal terrorist organisation that triggered the war and had committed ‘“horrific acts of sexual violence” but she made clear that how Israel defended itself mattered, adding later: “We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies [in Gaza]. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent.”
…Harris’ forceful remarks on Thursday, which were sharp and serious in tone, reflected what might mark a departure from Biden in how she deals with Netanyahu. Some noted the significance of Harris being the one to give public remarks after both she and Biden had separately met the prime minister.
We have to remember that these are just words. American politicians have long perfected the art of occasionally making tepid criticisms of Israel without taking any of the kinds of actions that might actually produce results, such as withholding military and other aid and not shielding that country and its leaders in international bodies like the United Nations, International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court. The US is quite willing to use those bodies to take extreme actions, including sanctions and embargoes, when it comes to many countries that violate international norms and commit war crimes, but not against Israel.
At this point, Harris is trying to walk a fine line, not wanting to make a radical break with Biden (assuming that she wants to) while at the same time signaling to those Democratic supporters who are angry about the lack of action by the US that she is listening to their concerns. I did not expect much from her because of that dynamic and it is only in the event of her becoming president that we can learn how far she really wants to go.
Although she has not said anything major, she has got some cover by the criticisms she has got from right wing Israeli politicians.
Members of Israel’s rightwing government have hit back at Kamala Harris over her demands for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza after she met Benjamin Netanyahu during his US visit.
An unnamed Israeli official accused Harris of endangering a potential deal to free Israeli and dual-national hostages in Gaza. “Hopefully the remarks Harris made in her press conference won’t be interpreted by Hamas as daylight between the US and Israel, thereby making a deal harder to secure,” the Israeli media reported the official as saying.
These attacks may help Harris by giving the impression that she took a stronger stand than she actually did.
This.
Until November her absolute priority will be (and arguably should be) defeating Trump -- and at least unless and until she looks very likely to defeat him, anything she says will have marginal if any influence over the actual perpetrators of the genocide, who will be hoping and working for a Trump victory (and would have been, even if Biden was the candidate). But in terms of that priority, she needs to avoid pushing too many American Zionists who are not already committed to Trump into his camp, while at the same time maintaining the wave of enthusiasm from Democratic activists, many of whom were repulsed by Biden’s enabling of genocide as well as his all-too-obvious decline. The relative priority she gives to those needs will be demonstrated in her choice of a running mate: choosing Kelly, or even more so Shapiro, will indicate that she prefers to coddle the Zionists. Cooper or Beshear would be a more neutral choice, Pritzker would possibly reinforce the perception of a shift away from enabling genocide.
Not in absolute terms, not particularly in European or World terms, but most certainly in USA terms.
(The theory of special political relativity; relatively, she is progressive)
The point is to get elected. The Republicans and any evangelicals who are not Republicans cheer any atrocity Israel commits, the Independents might go either way, and the older Democrats who grew up having the notion of a plucky young country fighting for its very survival shoved down their throats are still wont to think fondly Israel.
Can you explain why you say this?
During her two terms as a senator (which is really the only reliable way to measure, in my opinion), she had one of the most consistently progressive voting records, being the second most progressive senator according to voteview.com and the second and fourth most progressive according to govtrack.us, which accounts for bill sponsorship and cosponsorship. She also has the endorsement of the Progressive Caucus.
Seems to me that by any reasonable measure, Harris is progressive. Do you disagree because you have seen others claim that she isn’t, or do you have specific observations that make you say otherwise? And why do you think that “we need to be clear” that she is not?
I recall when Reagan of all people took a strong stance against Israel following the invasion of Lebanon and the massacre in the refugee camps.
That is a good question because the meaning of political labels like progressive, liberal, conservative depend on the benchmarks that one uses and the country context. Someone who is viewed as progressive in the US may be a centrist in some other countries. Within a country, one person might apply a different label than another because their benchmarks are different.
In the context of US, politics I use Bernie Sanders as a standard for what constitutes a progressive. He recently gave an interview as to why he immediately did not jump on the Harris bandwagon.
He said that he was trying to get her to commit to more progressive policies such as Medicare for all and expanding social security, lifting the income cap on Social Security in order to expand it, and expanding Medicare to cover dental and vision. He said all student debt should also be forgiven, and that there should be a cap on rents in the United States.
Sanders also seeks other things like more progressive income taxes, wealth taxes, abolishing the death penalty, and, of course, applying real pressure on Israel to stop their genocide
Harris may ideologically support some or all of these ideas. But she will very likely face a Republican majority in the Senate, the House, or both, so it’s unlikely that more than a couple of these policies could actually be implemented in her first term.
I don’t think that Sanders pushing her to make stronger commitments on these issues in her campaign says very much about her political positions. She is probably more of a political pragmatist than Sanders, but he is one of the least pragmatic people in Congress.
To put a stronger point on it, though, I think that we left-leaning folks should stop repeating the message that Harris isn’t “progressive enough.” She is one of the most, if not the most progressive candidate for president this country has ever had, she has a strong (although brief) voting record, and she doesn’t seem to hold any particularly problematic views.
We’ve gotten used to telling people to “hold your nose and vote.” This time, I really don’t think that’s necessary.
VERY gingerley.
invivoMark @#8,
The idea that Bernie Sanders is “one of the least pragmatic people in Congress” requires you to define how you measure ‘pragmatism’. He has a pretty good record of influencing legislation by means of amendments, as well as changing the conversation around issues in a more progressive direction. Thanks to him, the idea of Medicare for All (or some form of universal health care), student debt relief, and reducing drug prices (especially insulin) have all become part of the mainstream conversation. All this while being an Independent.
See here for what he has achieved.
Misleading headline.
I’ll believe it if it happens. Until then, Kamala Harris has demonstrated no difference in policy from Genocide Joe on Israel, and no willingness to stop a genocide that is happening right now.
Mano Singham @11,
You are correct, I was being ambiguous. I didn’t mean to imply that Sanders isn’t an effective politician. I agree that he has been very influential on a range of issues (as evidenced by his endorsement being seen as valuable).
What I meant by political pragmatism is the sort of action that is required to get bills passed. While Sanders sponsors lots of bills, he has only managed to pass 8 over the course of his career, most of which were very low-impact (e.g., renaming a post office). He doesn’t often cooperate across the aisle or with members of the House. His refusal to sometimes cooperate with Democrats can make things needlessly more difficult, such as when he blocked confirmation of Monica Bertagnolli as director of the National Institutes of Health. It took six months to confirm her because Sanders wanted her to commit to reducing prescription drug prices, something NIH has nothing to do with and which Bertagnolli couldn’t do even if she wanted to.
I’m not convinced that Bernie Sanders understands what the NIH does, but he used a gap in its leadership to grandstand over drug prices anyway, wasting everyone’s time and impeding the function of a federal agency. That’s why I consider him the extreme opposite of a pragmatist.
Further to my #2, Mehdi Hasan urges Harris to pick Tim Walz, on his record as Governor of Minnesota, his effective anti-Trump rhetoric (he pioneered the “weird” epithet, according to Hasan), and his attitudes over Gaza protests and unions. Also according to Hasan, the choice has narrowed down to three: Shapiro, Kelly, and Walz.
@13: I was in Vermont the summer Bernie (an Independent) decided to use Democratic money to run. There were bumper stickers everywhere! Initially I was quite on-board and excited, but the longer I looked into his record, the less I was sure he was the Messiah we were all hoping for. He has many fine qualities, but he’s a human and has his blind spots.