So many don’t want to know so much about Kamala Harris

As the presidential campaign reaches peak intensity, we are seeing an interesting phenomenon: journalists who don’t want to know some very basic information about one of the candidates.

That candidate, of course, is Vice President Kamala Harris, who has been famously sketchy about what she would do in a number of key policy areas, such as the economy, immigration, foreign policy, and much more, if she were to win the White House. All Republicans, and even some Democrats, want Harris to be more forthcoming about her plans, especially since she was quite open about her positions when she first ran for president, in the 2020 Democratic primaries. In addition, all journalists want Harris to be more open, on the simple principle that more information is better.

Actually, not all journalists. What has emerged recently is a new type of journalist who wants less, rather than more, information about the most important story of the moment. A few recent examples.

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens recently wrote a piece headlined, “What Harris Must Do to Win Over Skeptics (Like Me).” Stephens went through a number of policy questions, including Iran, Ukraine, Hamas, federal spending, climate, housing, nuclear power, and more, about which Harris has not given full descriptions of her positions — or any descriptions at all. “All this helps explain my unease with the thought of voting for Harris — an unease I never felt, despite policy differences, when Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were on the ballot against Trump,” Stephens wrote. “If Harris can answer the questions I posed above, she should be quick to do so, if only to dispel a widespread perception of unseriousness. If she can’t, then what was she doing over nearly eight years as a senator and vice president?”

Later, Stephens appeared on HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher with the MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle. First, Stephens had to establish his anti-Trump bona fides. He would never be taken seriously by the audience unless he did that. “I’m never going to vote for Trump,” Stephens said, “but I’m not sure I want to vote for Kamala. And my fear is that she doesn’t really have a very good command of what she wants to do as president.” Stephens suggested that “it would be great” if Harris would sit down with Ruhle or other journalists and answer questions.

One might think Ruhle would want that, too. But she does not. She was, in fact, appalled at Stephens’s idea. “Let’s say you don’t like her answer. Are you going to vote for Donald Trump?” Ruhle asked Stephens. No, said Stephens, and no one else should, either. “Kamala Harris is not running for perfect,” Ruhle responded. “We have two choices. And so there are some things you might not know her answer to, and in 2024, unlike 2016, for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he is to democracy.”

Stephens pointed out that it’s not just a few things we don’t know about Harris. It’s much more than that. “People also are expected to have some idea of what the program is that you’re supposed to vote for,” he said. “I don’t think it’s too much to ask for her to sit down for a real interview.” Ruhle replied: “I would just say to that, when you move to nirvana, give me your real estate broker’s number, and I’ll be your next-door neighbor. We don’t live there.”

It was a remarkable moment. As Ruhle, the journalist, saw it, wanting a campaign in which the leading candidate for president of the United States submits to scrutiny about her policy positions is an unreachable state of perfection. Voters simply don’t need to learn anything more about Harris.


www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3162990/many-do-not-want-to-know-kamala-harris-positions/