As the Democratic Party prepares to select its nominee for the 2024 presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris’s radical past is coming under scrutiny. With her presumptive nomination, Harris must now answer for her decades-long record of extreme positions on foreign policy, race, abortion, and the environment.
Harris’s views on healthcare, for instance, are far-left. As a senator, she co-sponsored a bill to socialize all healthcare in America, known as “Medicare for All,” which would eliminate private insurance. She later moderated her stance, suggesting that a private insurance industry could coexist alongside a socialized healthcare system.
The Vice President’s environmental record is equally extreme. In 2019, she stated that she supports banning fracking, a critical component of American energy exploration that has helped keep inflation in check. This position would make the US dependent on foreign oil and gas, devastating the economy.
Harris was also an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a radical agenda aimed at replacing reliable energy sources with renewables and reshaping society into a utopian left-wing ideal. Harris, of course, was one of 11 original co-sponsors, placing her at the left end of the party.
On abortion, she is an absolutist, refusing to grant any rights to the unborn at any stage of fetal development.
She raised money for arrested rioters whose politics she supported.
As riots raged in the summer of 2020, with fire and property damage and violent threats, Harris cheered them on.
Her activism on immigration issues is also troubling. She has argued that illegal entry should not be a crime and has blamed the border crisis on vague “root causes” rather than acknowledging her administration’s own policies.
As President, Harris would need to explain her radical views on Israel, her boycott of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech, and her support for far-left Representative Pramila Jayapal.
While politicians can evolve and change their views, Harris’s long history of extremism raises questions about her fitness for the presidency. Journalists should demand answers from her on these issues, and voters deserve to know where she stands.
