If there has been one guiding principle for candidates for public office, it is that they employ strategies and tactics they think work for them and eschew those they think don’t. And the logic of it is, of course, unimpeachable.
So, the only inference we can draw from Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ obvious avoidance of the press and failure to seize opportunities to tell voters what she planned to do as president, is that she thinks the less that is known about her the better. In this, of course she is following the path of President Biden, who entered office by virtue of his widely criticized basement campaign.
But it was not always so, and, indeed, it goes against the American grain of an informed electorate as a bedrock of our democracy. In fact, past American political campaigns have been candidate competitions for opportunities to present their programs with specifics – bowdlerized, to be sure.
Most are unaware that candidate access to voters is so basic to our system, that for more than a hundred years, we have had a provision in federal law colloquially referred to as the “equal-time rule.” This rule was created due to concerns that broadcast stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view and excluding other candidates.
The rule specifies that American radio and television broadcast stations must provide equivalent access to competing political candidates. Thus, if a station broadcast a message by a candidate in prime time, it must offer the same amount of time on the same terms to an opposing candidate.
In light of all of this, we find it troubling that the Vice President will simply not give straight, instructive answers to policy questions. When she sat down last week for just her second interview since becoming the Democratic candidate, she was asked to describe, “one or two specific things” she would do to fulfill her pledge of “bringing down prices and making life more affordable for people.”
We kid you not. Here is how she who would be president and tasked with momentous, complex crisis management, responded:
“Well, I’ll start with this: I grew up a middle-class kid. My mother raised my sister and me. She worked very hard. She was able to finally save up enough money to buy our first house when I was a teenager. I grew up in a community of hardworking people, you know, construction workers and nurses and teachers. And I try to explain to some people who may not have had the same experience, you know, if – but a lot of people will relate to this. You know I grew up in a neighborhood of folks who were very proud of their lawn, you know? And I was raised to believe and to know that all people deserve dignity, and that we as Americans have a beautiful character, you know, we have ambitions and aspiration and dreams. But not everyone necessarily has access to the resources that can help them fuel those dreams and ambitions. So, when I talk about building an opportunity economy, it is very much with the mind of investing in the ambitions and aspirations and the incredible work ethic of the American people…”
She then went on to off-handedly make some untethered references to a $50,000 tax credit for start-up small businesses, private sector tax breaks to stimulate housing construction and $25,000 in federal down payment assistance for first time home buyer. Also left unremarked was how to pay for these items and how to avoid the seemingly ineluctable massive spike in national debt and inflation.
We certainly recognize that political candidates do not want to be completely bound by the precise questions posed to them, nor should they be. They are surely entitled to some latitude in making their points. Unfortunately, by her aversion to subject herself to the probing of professional political reporters and her immaterial meanderings, the Democratic presidential candidate seems to be engaged in a conscious, cynical effort to con us into accepting her as she self-presents. And that is something about which to be concerned.
