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.
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.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.
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".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.
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.
Me:Harris has shown the capacity to be moved leftwards when pressured by activism.
No, man. I'm in line with Jacobin here.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.
Last edited: