 |
| We’re transforming your reading experience by removing all ads and focusing on high-quality, in-depth geopolitical analysis. Enjoy a cleaner, more enjoyable news experience, free from distractions.
Help us continue to provide exceptional content by donating today. Your support ensures we remain independent and reader-funded. Visit linktapgo.com/thedumshow to contribute. Thank you for making The DUM News better than ever! – Matt |
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Bernie Sanders has never been one to hold back, and his recent comments about Kamala Harris are no different. During a discussion on “Meet the Press,” Sanders was asked about Harris’s shift away from progressive policies she once championed. In the heat of an election cycle, these flip-flops are glaring, especially to voters on the far left who once viewed her as an ally.
Harris’s political pivot has raised eyebrows, and for good reason. She was a vocal advocate for policies like Medicare-For-All and a ban on fracking. Now, as the Democratic nominee, she has abandoned these stances, leaving many to wonder: Is this a genuine shift in her beliefs or a strategic move to win over more centrist voters? Sanders, never one to mince words, defended Harris to an extent, saying that she’s being pragmatic in her approach to win the election. But the question remains—at what cost?
Kamala Harris has been no stranger to policy reversals throughout her career. In fact, her political journey is marked by significant shifts that suggest a certain opportunism. Take her stance on healthcare, for instance. Harris was once a staunch supporter of Medicare-For-All, a flagship policy of Bernie Sanders. During the 2020 Democratic primaries, she made headlines for co-sponsoring the Medicare-For-All bill. Fast forward to today, and Harris has backed away from that position. Instead, she now advocates for a more moderate approach to healthcare reform, emphasizing expanding the Affordable Care Act rather than pushing for a single-payer system. Her justification? Harris claims her values have remained consistent, but that the methods to achieve them may need to change to reflect political realities.
Let’s talk about fracking. Back when she was running for president in 2019, Harris was vocal about her opposition to fracking. She unequivocally stated that she would ban it. Yet, today, in the run-up to the 2024 election, Harris has walked back that position. When pressed on the issue, she argues that her focus is now on transitioning to clean energy without jeopardizing jobs—a far cry from the sweeping ban she once endorsed. This reversal has frustrated environmental activists who saw her as a potential ally in the fight against climate change. Sanders, for his part, has remained steadfast in his opposition to fracking, making it clear that Harris’s new stance diverges sharply from his own.
Harris’s flip-flops extend to immigration as well. She previously advocated for more lenient immigration policies, including supporting sanctuary cities and opposing the construction of a border wall. As California’s Attorney General, she was known for her progressive stance on immigration enforcement, even going as far as criticizing the federal government’s actions on deportations. But since becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris has taken a more hardline approach to border security. In her first sit-down interview as the nominee, she highlighted her record of prosecuting transnational criminal organizations and enforcing border security laws. This shift seems designed to appeal to more moderate and independent voters who are concerned about immigration, but it’s another example of Harris bending to the political winds.
When asked directly if Harris is abandoning her ideals, Sanders didn’t completely throw her under the bus. He acknowledged that while her views differ from his own, he still considers her a progressive at heart. Sanders pointed to shared goals like expanding Social Security, raising the minimum wage, and making the child tax credit permanent. However, even these points of agreement come with caveats. Harris’s commitment to raising the minimum wage is commendable, but her path to achieving these goals seems less clear, especially as she continues to walk a tightrope between appealing to progressives and moderates.
Perhaps the most telling moment came when Harris was asked about the Green New Deal, a proposal she once vocally supported. During her CNN interview with Dana Bash, Harris reiterated her commitment to combating climate change, but the enthusiasm that once accompanied her advocacy for the Green New Deal seemed to be missing. Instead, she pointed to the Inflation Reduction Act as evidence of her dedication to climate action, emphasizing that her values haven’t changed, but her methods might have evolved. For those on the far left, this isn’t quite the passionate defense of the Green New Deal they were hoping for.
But let’s not gloss over the underlying tension here. Sanders knows as well as anyone that Harris’s shift toward the center is a calculated move. It’s politics 101—candidates tack to the left or right during primaries, then pivot toward the center during the general election. Harris is no different, but what sets her apart is the sheer magnitude of her policy reversals. Medicare-For-All, fracking, immigration—these aren’t minor tweaks. These are significant changes in positions that once defined her candidacy.
It’s clear that Harris’s campaign is trying to play both sides, appealing to progressives without alienating moderates. Her spokesperson, Mia Ehrenberg, was quick to spin this as “pragmatism,” a word that has become a convenient catch-all for Harris’s evolving positions. The campaign wants to frame her shifts as part of a broader strategy to bring people together and find common ground. That might be true to an extent, but it also raises legitimate questions about Harris’s authenticity. Voters on the left, especially those who supported Bernie Sanders, are right to ask whether Harris will actually fight for the progressive policies she once championed or if her so-called “pragmatic” approach will dilute the bold changes they hoped for.
Let’s not forget Harris’s record as California’s Attorney General. During her tenure, she was often criticized for being overly punitive and failing to address systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Harris has since tried to distance herself from some of her more controversial decisions, but her record speaks for itself. The irony is not lost on many that the same woman who once touted her tough-on-crime credentials is now trying to present herself as a champion for criminal justice reform.
This brings us to the heart of the matter: Kamala Harris’s political career has been defined by a series of shifts and recalibrations. Whether it’s her position on healthcare, the environment, immigration, or criminal justice, Harris has shown a willingness to change her tune when it suits her. Sanders may still consider her a progressive, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that Harris is playing the political game—and playing it well.
But the real question is whether voters will buy it. Will progressives rally behind a candidate who has abandoned some of their most cherished ideals, or will they see through the pragmatism and view Harris as just another politician willing to say whatever it takes to win? Only time will tell. One thing is certain: Kamala Harris is walking a fine line, and every step she takes closer to the center risks alienating the very base that helped her rise to prominence in the first place.
“The Don’t Unfriend Me Show” explores a broad range of political themes, from satire to serious topics, with Matt Speer, a Navy Intel veteran, husband, and father, leading the show. Matt shares his views to stimulate constructive discussions. The show aims to provide a balanced perspective on complex issues, welcoming participants of all political affiliations to share their unique viewpoints.