Why Kamala Lies About Her Policies

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz appear determined to offer voters a campaign which is unburdened not just by what has been, but by policy and politics as well.

For nearly two weeks after Joe Biden dropped out of the race, the most compelling offer the Harris campaign could make to the electorate was that Joe Biden was gone, and if they closed their eyes and placed their faith in Harris, Donald Trump too could vanish, along with all the icky problems of the world. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and inflation itself were nothing compared to the “vibes” of the Harris campaign – or so they wanted voters to believe.

Harris and her allies in the media appear to have no interest in discussing the candidate or whatever policies she may wish to implement. On the contrary, to the extent they engage with policy at all, it is to demonstrate the contempt with which they view it, and the contempt with which they view those, whether political strategists or journalists, who purport to care about it.

One-by-one, Kamala Harris has responded to questions about past policy positions by ruthlessly jettisoning them the moment they came under attack. Support for Medicare for all, defunding the police, and bans on fracking have all been thrown overboard, often with a terse “Vice President Harris no longer supports X” posted on social media. Such policy shifts are not dignified with even a contrived justification for an “evolution.” It is merely, “Harris no longer supports this, so stop bothering us about it.”

Republicans, conservatives, and the few honest journalists not caught up in “Kamalamentum” have accused Harris of trying to rewrite history. But that may not be exactly right.

There are two types of lies in the world. The first are lies meant to deceive. These are meant to be convincing, and are limited by the need to appear plausible. The second type are lies meant to deceive no one, but rather demonstrate supremacy.

When Vladimir Putin claimed reelection with 87 percent of the vote, including 85 percent in Moscow, where he won only 40 percent in 2011, the intention was not to persuade opponents that he was universally loved, but to demonstrate their powerlessness. By making clear that they could organize, protest, and risk arrest to vote, yet at the end of the day he would release whatever numbers he felt like, his regime sent a clear message that no one should bother opposing him in the future. It was a waste of time.

The Harris campaign’s contemptuous treatment of her past policy record is likewise an attempt to send a signal to the media and Republicans that questions about what policies she may or may not have supported are a waste of time, and attacks on her record are a waste of money. If questioned about an unpopular past position, Harris will merely declare she no longer supports it, and if attacked effectively on a current position, she will deny holding it. Therefore, don’t bother trying.

This represents not an effort to ride out the election through sheer momentum, but a cynical attempt to control and manipulate the information economy in which the election is taking place. It reeks of the conditions of 2020 when tech companies, the intelligence agencies, and the Biden campaign colluded to decide what could be reported and what could not be.

There is no better example of the way in which the Harris campaign and its allies wish to bend reality itself than in their choice of contradictory policy realities. Harris disdains any responsibility for inflation under Biden, yet at the same time she promises money to absolutely everyone. She has promised untold billions of dollars to impose price controls on groceries, build millions of new homes, and create new welfare programs – all while also pledging to cut taxes.

Politicians have always tried to bribe the electorate with public money. There is a reason Ronald Reagan remarked that the problem with socialism was that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.

But what stands out now is the shamelessness with which Harris is willing to adopt new policy promises with the same, “ok, fine, have whatever you want” nonchalance with which she dropped previous promises.

Want houses? Fine, I will build them.

Want to pay less in taxes? Fine, I will cut them.

Want a cease-fire in Gaza? Well, so do I.

Support Israel? Well, so do I, and have I mentioned my husband is Jewish?

Just as her willingness to drop policies when attacked sends a signal to the media and Republicans not to bother discussing her record, her willingness to adopt policies which are logistically impossible or which contradict each other is a signal that trying to engage her in a policy debate is a waste of time. Her policy on any given day is whatever she believes a majority of the public wants to hear.

Many readers may recall the old school-yard taunt, “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” It was infuriating, circular, and, absent a resort of fisticuffs which was itself often a concession of defeat, successful. The taunt might as well be the Harris-Walz campaign’s motto at this point, and Republicans would be naive to assume that merely because it is dishonest, circular, and infuriating that it will be politically ineffective.

Democrat partisans do not care about the dishonesty, because they have internalized the idea that they are merely doing what MSNBC claims Republicans did to them. If anything, the idea of hitting back and behaving in the manner liberals imagine Donald Trump behaves mobilizes the Democrat base. How else to explain Tim Walz being able to make an obscene joke about Senator JD Vance and a couch, something he and everyone in the audience knew to be a hoax? He did so because his ability to spread a crude lie made his audience feel empowered over their enemies.

Complaining about these tactics only plays into them. With the Harris-Walz campaign refusing to engage, they either ignore or mock any complaints, whether from Republicans or journalists.

Ultimately, the only way to beat bullies is to isolate them from the wider population. In schools, that means turning the rest of the students against them and showing how an attack on their victims is an attack on everyone. The same is true politically. Most voters will not care what Harris or Walz do to JD Vance or even Donald Trump. They will, however, care what Harris and Walz do to them.

This means Republicans must make clear that the contempt for policy shown by Harris and Walz is actually a contempt for the electorate. She is not listening to victims of crime by flipping her position on law enforcement, but rather showing she does not care. It would be one thing if she genuinely believed in the power of rehabilitation and, wrongly, was convinced it would reduce crime rates in the long-term. Instead, by claiming to drop her “Defund the Police” extremism without explanation, she is indicating that she was willing to allow criminals to run free solely for political advantage, and is now willing to flip her position as soon as the perceived political winds have shifted. It is a sign not of being wrong, but being sociopathic.

Similarly, it is possible for an honest socialist to believe that government construction of houses, student loan forgiveness, or price controls are justified. But such an honest socialist would advocate paying for them through higher taxes. Harris, by promising lower taxes and less regulation to the powerful, and handouts to her base, raises the question of who she will deliver for. She is lying to someone, and there is a compelling case to be made that it is in fact everyone being taken for a ride.

If Harris manages to make the campaign about whether she and Tim Walz are making mean jokes about Donald Trump and JD Vance, she stands a real chance of getting away with it. It is incumbent on the GOP to make clear to the voters that the joke is on them. Only then will they return to Harris and Walz the contempt the Democrat ticket has shown to public the past few weeks.

Walter Samuel is the pseudonym of a prolific international affairs writer and academic. He has worked in Washington as well as in London and Asia, and holds a Doctorate in International History.