NYT Op-Ed: Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

samoyed · Jan 17, 2019

Zelas said:
Read the article I posted at the beginning of this thread, hell read her wikipedia page.

Harris's many boosters in the media will tell you that none of this matters. Rather than doing their job of scrutinizing the record of a prospective presidential candidate, they argue, they and other journalists should simply keep quiet and "give her an opportunity to shine or not shine," rather than "undercut her before she even begins."

This is an obviously ludicrous idea, particularly coming from anyone who considers themselves a journalist. But beyond that, if Harris plans on making a run for president, which she has shown every intention of doing, anyone intending to play a role in selecting the Democratic candidate come 2020 — from middle-of-the-road liberals to leftists — should have a clear-eyed understanding of her record.

It should matter to us that Harris, the ardent criminal justice reformer, not only did little to enact this reform during her years as a prosecutor but backed harsh, punitive policies that undermined her own progressive rhetoric on the issue. It should matter that she at times did so needlessly, taking a harsher stance than her right-wing opponents. It should matter that she repeatedly attempted to keep an innocent man locked up in prison and attempted to defend a falsified confession.

Harris has shown the capacity to be moved leftwards when pressured by activism. This is no small thing. But you can't pressure Harris — or any other politician, for that matter — without having an understanding of her record beyond the fuzzy PR that Democratic loyalists are currently trying to substitute for actual political discussion. Perhaps Harris will end up the 2020 nominee. Then it's all the more important we understand her inadequacies.

I don't know what to tell you man. If you go through the thread, it's not my side that's not giving her her due. On the contrary it's because some people are already of aware her two faces that they're not chomping at the "progressive" bit.

It's really weird that you'd cite a Jacobin piece of all things. Had you made a Harris thread with this as your launchpad you would've been called a divisive purity tester by most of Era's staunchest liberals, just like the Harris critics were labeled in this thread.

The introduction in particular is the quintessence of Harris/Beto/Biden threads here on Era.

Harris's rise has produced a fiery debate among liberals and the Left. Leftists and progressives have come out in strong opposition to Harris's candidacy, with some declaring #NeverKamala and some high-profile Bernie Sanders supporters, such as National Nurses United executive director RoseAnn DeMoro, making clear their lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy. For some prominent liberals, this pushback is simply the product of virulent racism and sexism among an imagined (and non-existent) all-white, all-male, Sanders-supporting base.

While most Harris-supporting liberals wouldn't go this far, there is deep suspicion among some Democrats that opposition to Harris is motivated by similarly less-than-noble motives — namely, that it's part of a project of poisoning the well for any potential challengers of a Bernie Sanders or Sanders-like candidacy in 2020.

In truth, there is much about Harris's long record as a public prosecutor in California — the vast bulk of her career — that is up for legitimate criticism by any prospective 2020 Democratic voters.

Throughout her career, Harris has been called the "female Obama." In reference to her race, this is lazy and arguably even racist. But the comparison is apt with reference to her politics. Harris has emulated the Obama approach, delivering a combination of some notable progressive victories and pleasant rhetoric and a steadfast avoidance of structural change — paired, in some cases, with far-from-progressive policies.

There is most definitely one group of posters here looking for the next Obama and one group of posters here going "naw he/she isn't 2020's Obama, chief".

My stances are not all that different from Jacobin's since it's one of the primary sources for my socialism. If I sound like I just hate everything about Harris, it's because I'm trying to balance out the pro-Harris camp who're even less informed than I am about her particulars as far as I can tell. For them, all this stuff in the Op-Ed and the Jacobin piece are, if not brushed aside as yet another Russian manipulation campaign, are at most minor details in the face of her progressive crusade.

The Jacobin piece:

Eleven years later, a judge reversed the conviction due to the lack of evidence and incompetence of Larson's attorney's. Yet two years later, Larsen was still in jail. Why? Because Harris, now a vocal opponent of mass incarceration, appealed the judge's decision on the basis that Larsen had filed his paperwork too late — a technicality.

Harris has shown the capacity to be moved leftwards when pressured by activism.

Me:

samoyed said:
She uses legal technicalities and the letter of the law to shore up her judicially oppressive decisions which destroys lives, all with the shrewdness you'd expect of a career prosecutor. She reverses course when it's politically expedient to do so or when the backlash becomes too great to deflect.

No, man. I'm in line with Jacobin here.

danm999 · Jan 17, 2019

Zelas said:
Because it's who they've always been before Trump that made it easy for them to become, and for folks to label them as never Trump republicans. Suburban white women, college educated whites, etc. Especially after 2018 I'd argue the consensus is more than settled.

The key to Democrats successes in the midterms wasn't really Never Trump Republicans (though they obviously helped delivered Orange County), it was turning non voters into voters.

That's a much larger pool of people, and when they started showing up, the Democrats began winning seats in places they never would have expected.

Powdered Egg · Jan 17, 2019

weirder said:
Seems an ideological misnomer for that type of behavior.

Lol it's not unfortunately. This has been a problem since at least the 50s/60s. White Liberals and their politicians want Black people to vote for their party and generally don't care about the Black community. The parties are neck and neck in the White community and it's the Black vote that pushes Democrats towards the finish line.

Zelas · Jan 17, 2019

Stardestroyer said:
Let be honest, body cams would have been a bad idea, right senator Harris?

Who needs accountability.

Again, disingenuous posts.

Before this:

and this:

she said and did this in 2015:

"So, I don't think we can have a one-size-fits-all approach to this," she added.

Harris, whose own department is the first statewide agency to adopt a body camera program, waded into an issue that has sparked intense debate at the Capitol.

That makes her anti body cam?? At worse you can say she was initially compromising too much with her naive/cop friendly take. But from the start, she clearly understood their need in spite of the opposition. Present ALL the facts please.

samoyed said:
I don't know what to tell you man. If you go through the thread, it's not my side that's not giving her her due. On the contrary it's because some people are already of aware her two faces that they're not chomping at the "progressive" bit.

It's really weird that you'd cite a Jacobin piece of all things. Had you made a Harris thread with this as your launchpad you would've been called a divisive purity tester by most of Era's staunchest liberals, just like the Harris critics were labeled in this thread.

The introduction in particular is the quintessence of Harris/Beto/Biden threads here on Era.

There is most definitely one group of posters here looking for the next Obama and one group of posters here going "naw he/she isn't 2020's Obama, chief".

My stances are not all that different from Jacobin's since it's one of the primary sources for my socialism. If I sound like I just hate everything about Harris, it's because I'm trying to balance out the pro-Harris camp who're even less informed than I am about her particulars as far as I can tell. For them, all this stuff in the Op-Ed and the Jacobin piece are, if not brushed aside as yet another Russian manipulation campaign, are at most minor details in the face of her progressive crusade.

The Jacobin piece:

Me:

No, man. I'm in line with Jacobin here.

You are most definitely not in line with Jacobin. The Jacobin article is criticizing her claim that she was a progressive prosecutor. Nobody in this thread is making that claim. Instead we have folks trying to point out that she isn't a fascist, anti body camera, or whatever other uniformed/biased take folks are throwing out there. Not being a progressive prosecutor doesn't mean she is 100% a villain with a track record that has already disqualified her in the mind of primary voters (the majority of which wont be as liberal as those who made her a senator).

On top of presenting her past the Jacobin piece is willing to acknowledge that she has shown a capability to change from who she used to be. You still have not acknowledged the good she has done in the past or present. Even OP ghosted when the answer was provided to his demand that people show them how her work as a Senator addresses her failures as a prosecutor. The article goes out its way multiple times to argue that EVERYTHING about her track record should be considered. The Jacobin article is literally titled the TWO faces of Kamala Harris. While you're insisting she only has the one, irreconcilable face, you will never be in line with the Jacobin article.

danm999 said:
The key to Democrats successes in the midterms wasn't really Never Trump Republicans (though they obviously helped delivered Orange County), it was turning non voters into voters.

That's a much larger pool of people, and when they started showing up, the Democrats began winning seats in places they never would have expected.

No it was definitely success among the suburban types I mentioned. Flipping blue to blue isnt a thing.

Stardestroyer · Jan 17, 2019

Zelas said:
Again, disingenuous posts.

Before this:

and this:

she said and did this in 2015:

That makes her anti body cam?? At worse you can say she was initially compromising too much with her naive/cop friendly take. But from the start, she clearly understood their need in spite of the opposition. Present ALL the facts please.

You are most definitely not in line with Jacobin. The Jacobin article is criticizing her claim that she was a progressive prosecutor. Nobody in this thread is making that claim. Instead we have folks trying to point out that she isn't a fascist, anti body camera, or whatever other uniformed/biased take folks are throwing out there. Not being a progressive prosecutor doesn't mean she is 100% a villain with a track record that has already disqualified her in the mind of primary voters (the majority of which wont be as liberal as those who made her a senator).

On top of presenting her past the Jacobin piece is willing to acknowledge that she has shown a capability to change from who she used to be. You still have not acknowledged the good she has done in the past or present. Even OP ghosted when the answer was provided to his demand that people show them how her work as a Senator addresses her failures as a prosecutor. The article goes out its way multiple times to argue that EVERYTHING about her track record should be considered. The Jacobin article is literally titled the TWO faces of Kamala Harris. While you're insisting she only has the one, irreconcilable face, you will never be in line with the Jacobin article.

No it was definitely success among the suburban types I mentioned. Flipping blue to blue isnt a thing.

Was that suppose to contradict what I said or something? There is no real reason to be against such an effective way to minimize bad cops. Trying to do training is making the long busy road, where there is a short less busy road.

Good for her for implementing it in her department., sucks for everyone else.

samoyed · Jan 17, 2019

Zelas said:
While you're insisting she only has the one, irreconcilable face, you will never be in line with the Jacobin article.

samoyed said:
Harris can turn this around if she owns up to her past and puts justice reform near the center of her campaign. Her being based in Atlanta means she can't dodge this issue forever, activists and civil rights leader will hold her feet to the fire over this.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Unknown Unknown · Jan 17, 2019

Powdered Egg said:
Lol it's not unfortunately. This has been a problem since at least the 50s/60s. White Liberals and their politicians want Black people to vote for their party and generally don't care about the Black community.

Undoubtedly this type of thing has happened and continues to happen. Even movies like Gangs of New York has this as a subplot involving the Irish. It seems that this type of thing would be the result of an individual's exploitative behavior and not necessarily a result of current liberal political ideology.
I say this based on the experiences in my country where political parties have often and continue to ignore indigenous peoples. However, as society has advanced individuals have changed along with it and there is more genuine engagement and political representation being given to the indigenous by some political banners that in the past have ignored, used or dismissed indigenous peoples. It's part of the reason I think that this exploitative problem may have more to do with things other than liberal ideology.

Suzushiiro · Jan 17, 2019

Yeah, Harris is down there with Biden and Bloomberg in the "I'll support them over any Republican but can I fucking please not have to do that" tier because of shit like this. There's a lot of shit where I'll potentially let bygones be bygones with a "my views have evolved and I now believe in the more electable position," directly contributing to the mass incarceration crisis by letting innocent people rot in prison (or giving guilty people excessively harsh punishments) isn't one of them.

The "she had to do it because she was a woman of color in a male dominated field and she couldn't keep/advance her career if she went easy on people" defense can also fuck entirely off, while I'm at it. No single person's career is so important that it justifies jailing innocent people.

samoyed · Jan 17, 2019

I wrote most of what I did not as a particular critique of Harris but to destroy the idea that she's "progressive", or that she's good enough. Consider:

NYTimes said:
That case is not an outlier. Ms. Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison on a 28-year-to-life sentence for possession of a concealed weapon even though his trial lawyer was incompetent and there was compelling evidence of his innocence. Relying on a technicality again, Ms. Harris argued that Mr. Larsen failed to raise his legal arguments in a timely fashion. (This time, she lost.)

Jacobin said:
The Larsen case was a travesty of justice from start to finish. In 1999, when two police officers claimed they saw Larsen, who had earlier in his life been convicted for burglary, pull a six-inch-long knife from his waistband and throw it under a car, he was sentenced to twenty-seven years to life under the three-strikes law supported by Harris.

And the liberal response:

She did her job or what was necessary to keep her job. You can put together a piece like this for every AG in the country.

Here comes the 'not good enough' train. Making frequent, looping stops at Kristen Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke and every single other prospective Democratic candidate until the 2020 election.

Have you considered that she was forced to play it a little hard because of her standing as a woman in a male dominated field?

if democrats are going to elect based on purity tests, then democrats will keep losing presidential elections

As long as a candidate is not a horrible person, blatant criminal, bigot, grifter, etc., I'm more interested in their policy platform than anything else.

We as the people on the left need to get here. Nitpicking every little thing is going to leave you with a field of exactly zero candidates.

Is this another world war being waged by Bernie?

God, the purity testers are nuts.
Harris is probably the smartest and most knowledgeable candidate the Dems have.

The GOP is running the country to the ground by the second and the NYT puts out a bit piece to the most passionately supported democratic candidate so far.

She is progressive enough for me and obviously she won't do something like her past actions again.

Exactly this. A giant competition to out-moral eachother until the voter base is tired unmotivated and complacent. Meanwhile GOP will continue electing rapists and climate change deniers.

We're pretty early with the purity tests aren't we?

Meh. She's definitely more progressive than most and we arent going to have a perfect candidate.

The left is going to go down in flames if we don't stop with the measuring sticks. It's fucking destroying this party at the national level.

Is she perfect? No. Do I believe there are perfect candidates? Also no. Would I vote for her over Trump? Definitely. Do I think Harris deserves the label of "progressive" when her career has been characterized by being on the right side and wrong side of progressive initiatives, seemingly according to whichever choice gave her career the most leverage? Nope. Am I going to ignore people coming to bat for a cop-turned-politician like her with cries of "PURITY TEST!", "BERNIE", "SO YOU WANT TRUMP?"? Absolutely fucking not.

If all her defenders said something like "yeah I like her chances but she needs to own up to this or I'm voting Beto" I wouldn't even be here.

danm999 · Jan 17, 2019

Zelas said:
No it was definitely success among the suburban types I mentioned. Flipping blue to blue isnt a thing.

I don't mean blue to blue, I mean flipping red to blue by getting out of the vote with people who don't usually vote. This very clearly happened during the midterms, given turnout was at a historical high, and youth turnout jumped by 10% over 2014!

samoyed · Jan 17, 2019

(As an aside, flipping blue to blue is a thing imo in the sense of kicking out blue dogs for millennial socdems. The shade of the blue does matter.)

nomis · Jan 18, 2019

samoyed said:
I wrote most of what I did not as a particular critique of Harris but to destroy the idea that she's "progressive", or that she's good enough. Consider:

And the liberal response:

Is she perfect? No. Do I believe there are perfect candidates? Also no. Would I vote for her over Trump? Definitely. Do I think Harris deserves the label of "progressive" when her career has been characterized by being on the right side and wrong side of progressive initiatives, seemingly according to whichever choice gave her career the most leverage? Nope. Am I going to ignore people coming to bat for a cop-turned-politician like her with cries of "PURITY TEST!", "BERNIE", "SO YOU WANT TRUMP?"? Absolutely fucking not.

If all her defenders said something like "yeah I like her chances but she needs to own up to this or I'm voting Beto" I wouldn't even be here.

there are people on this board who will defend literally any actions as "what they had to do" and pointing them out is a bernie sanders directed character assassination

"now is [never] the time" for vetting to see if someone will consistently uphold our values

Suzushiiro · Jan 18, 2019

samoyed said:
(As an aside, flipping blue to blue is a thing imo in the sense of kicking out blue dogs for millennial socdems. The shade of the blue does matter.)

Yeah, while AOC and Ayanna Pressley are the most visible examples of this nationally the best example is probably NY State, where progressives primarying out members of the "Independent Democratic Caucus" (read: Republicans who ran as Democrats then caucused with the Republicans and got away with it because nobody paid attention to primaries in this state until last year) has given the real Democrats control of the legislature.

danm999 · Jan 18, 2019

Suzushiiro said:
Yeah, while AOC and Ayanna Pressley are the most visible examples of this nationally the best example is probably NY State, where progressives primarying out members of the "Independent Democratic Caucus" (read: Republicans who ran as Democrats then caucused with the Republicans and got away with it because nobody paid attention to primaries in this state until last year) has given the real Democrats control of the legislature.

The IDC blew my mind when I found out about it.

samoyed · Jan 18, 2019

nomis said:
there are people on this board who will defend literally any actions as "what they had to do" and pointing them out is a bernie sanders directed character assassination

I remember I was highlighting Obama's foreign policy in another thread, the Bill Clinton one, and I saw this same line.

Well you're unbelievably naive. All Presidents know going in to the job that they'll inevitably be responsible for the loss of innocent lives. Critizing Obama for drone strikes is one thing, but that he deserves prison or worse?

All presidents have to bomb Middle Eastern countries! All prosecutors have to wrongfully incarcerate criminals! We can't hold the government accountable, that'd invite anarchy! Now excuse me I have an appointment in this police homicide thread where I'll wail and gnash my teeth over how things could've gotten this bad.

Unknown Unknown · Jan 18, 2019

samoyed said:
I wrote most of what I did not as a particular critique of Harris but to destroy the idea that she's "progressive", or that she's good enough. Consider:
And the liberal response:
Is she perfect? No. Do I believe there are perfect candidates? Also no. Would I vote for her over Trump? Definitely. Do I think Harris deserves the label of "progressive" when her career has been characterized by being on the right side and wrong side of progressive initiatives, seemingly according to whichever choice gave her career the most leverage? Nope. Am I going to ignore people coming to bat for a cop-turned-politician like her with cries of "PURITY TEST!", "BERNIE", "SO YOU WANT TRUMP?"? Absolutely fucking not.
If all her defenders said something like "yeah I like her chances but she needs to own up to this or I'm voting Beto" I wouldn't even be here.

This raises a good point. While there may be various reasons to want to support her and diminish any tarnishes it's important to remain critical, objective and understand who she is.
I don't get an intentionally nefarious read from those quoted posts. They seem more based on fears of a second term for Trump or another Republican. They seem to see her as the most viable option or the one that best represents them. But in doing this it diminishes(if not outright dismisses) concerns of those who may be vulnerable to some of those past tendencies she's shown and who may be better represented by another candidate. Even so, that may not be a liberal thing but something else about the human condition.

Deleted member 22490 · Jan 18, 2019

samoyed said:
I remember I was highlighting Obama's foreign policy in another thread, the Bill Clinton one and I saw this same line.

All presidents have to bomb Middle Eastern countries! All prosecutors have to wrongfully incarcerate criminals! We can't hold the government accountable, that'd invite anarchy! Now excuse me I have an appointment in this police homicide thread where I'll wail and gnash my teeth over how things could've gotten this bad.

"He had to vote this way because he was planning to run for Senate"

phazedplasma · Jan 18, 2019

PrimeBeef said:
When you are a AG you job is to defend the government regardless of your political leanings. Just because she may have defended the state in lawsuits that would make her stance seem less progressive doesn't mean she held those beliefs. She gave an interview to NPR earlier the week about this very subject.

This is such a ridiculous statement. State AG's are elected by the people (in almost all cases).

From USA.gov:

They advise and represent their legislature and state agencies and act as the "People's Lawyer" for the citizens.

There are plenty of AGs that buck the trend and rule in favor of criminal justice reform, support the innocence project (and not fight it), etc. There is no reason why she couldn't have done that.

NYT Op-Ed: Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

User requested account closure