The Case for Kamala Harris
The Case for Kamala Harris
You're viewing a single thread.
This endorsement will not be controversial to Trump's antagonists. Nor will it matter to his supporters. But to the voters who don’t much care for either candidate, and who will decide the country’s fate, it is not enough to list Harris’s strengths or write a bill of obvious particulars against Trump. The main reason for those ambivalent Americans to vote for Harris has little to do with policy or partisanship. It’s this: Electing her and defeating him is the only way to release us from the political nightmare in which we’re trapped and bring us to the next phase of the American experiment.
Trump isn’t solely responsible for this age of poisonous rhetoric, hateful name-calling, conspiracies and lies, divided families and communities, cowardly leaders and deluded followers—but as long as Trump still sits atop the Republican Party, it will not end. His power depends on lowering the country into a feverish state of fear and rage where Americans turn on one another. For the millions of alienated and politically homeless voters who despise what the country has become and believe it can do better, sending Trump into retirement is the necessary first step.
If you’re a conservative who can’t abide Harris’s tax and immigration policies, but who is also offended by the rottenness of the Republican Party, only Trump’s final defeat will allow your party to return to health—then you’ll be free to oppose President Harris wholeheartedly. Like you, we wish for the return of the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, a party animated by actual ideas. We believe that American politics are healthiest when vibrant conservative and liberal parties fight it out on matters of policy.
If you’re a progressive who thinks the Democratic Party is a tool of corporate America, talk to someone who still can’t forgive themselves for voting for Ralph Nader in 2000—then ask yourself which candidate, Harris or Trump, would give you any leverage to push for policies you care about.
And if you’re one of the many Americans who can’t stand politics and just want to opt out, remember that under democracy, inaction is also an action; that no one ever has clean hands; and that, as our 1860 editorial said, “nothing can absolve us from doing our best to look at all public questions as citizens, and therefore in some sort as administrators and rulers.” In other words, voting is a right that makes you responsible.
Trump is the sphinx who stands in the way of America entering a more hopeful future. In Greek mythology, the sphinx killed every traveler who failed to answer her riddle, until Oedipus finally solved it, causing the monster’s demise. The answer to Trump lies in every American’s hands. Then he needs only to go away.
If you’re a progressive who thinks the Democratic Party is a tool of corporate America, talk to someone who still can’t forgive themselves for voting for Ralph Nader in 2000—then ask yourself which candidate, Harris or Trump, would give you any leverage to push for policies you care about.
This is contradicted by this:
Like you, we wish for the return of the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, a party animated by actual ideas. We believe that American politics are healthiest when vibrant conservative and liberal parties fight it out on matters of policy.
I don't want a return to party of Bush. I want the American people to have the highest standard of living in the world - not the people of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
If you're saying that Kamala will restore the GOP, then it seems that the American people will never be prioritized. In which case, we should all leave and emigrate to Scandinavia where their people are treated like human beings rather than servants
Like you, we wish for the return of the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, a party animated by actual ideas.
Emphasis mine. They're pining for the party of Bush because it was grounded in truth and ideas.
If you’re saying that Kamala will restore the GOP, then it seems that the American people will never be prioritized. In which case, we should all leave and emigrate to Scandinavia where their people are treated like human beings rather than servants
How on Earth did you get that from this endorsement? In fact, they said exactly the opposite:
only Trump’s final defeat will allow your party to return to health
That whole paragraph is prefaced with "If you’re a conservative who can’t abide Harris’s tax and immigration policies". They're not talking to you, they're addressing conflicted conservatives.
You really should have read it more carefully.
They’re pining for the party of Bush because it was grounded in truth and ideas.
It was WHAT!?
Don't shoot the messenger. Damn y'all need to learn how to read the fucking article.
Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs and oversaw the patriot act, Guantanamo Bay waterboarding, and Abu Ghraib. He stole the election in 2000 in Bush v Gore. He was a fascist and damaged the US worse than Trump
If the US won't ever have single payer then we should emigrate to Denmark. Why would I want to live here?
What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the endorsement? It doesn't even mention Bush.
What was McCains stance on all of the above?
Pining for the party of Bush is pining for evil and diminished living standards
None of that has anything to do with Kamala Harris. Again, what the hell are you talking about? That paragraph is addressing CONSERVATIVES.
You're saying Kamala will help restore the GOP to the party of Bush and McCain. That is a terrible thing to admit. The neoconservatives are monsters who harmed the country, to say nothing of the innocents abroad who were tortured and murdered
Where the eff is this BS from? They clearly said if you cut off the toxic poisoned head spewing hate and venom, the Republican Party can rebuild around ideas, policy, maybe even around morality (doubt). If you’re a conservative, that ought to be a good thing. If you’re pro-democracy, the renewal of two sane choices battling for ideas ought to be a good thing.
I’m sure I also would disagree with those ideas, but I welcome the competition, I welcome the possibility of respecting g our national leaders.
All I can say is that when Mitt Romney talks family values, he means actual family values. When Ronald Reagan said he’d trickle down on you, you could smell the urine. When Ross Perot talked about corporatism, he meant it
If you’re pro-democracy, the renewal of two sane choices battling for ideas ought to be a good thing.
I’m sure I also would disagree with those ideas, but I welcome the competition, I welcome the possibility of respecting g our national leaders.
If you're pro democracy then the restoration of the pre Trump GOP is a terrible thing. They were always this bad on policy, if not worse re: Iraq. It's just now Trump has taken the mask off.
It is in the interest of the American people for the GOP to permanently stay Trumpist, or get even more extreme. They can't win national elections when they are like this. Whereas the neocons and the Bushes are capable of winning. And they're drastically more effective and competent and harmful than Trump
If Kamala does anything to restore the GOP then she is a fool. Liz Cheney is competent which makes her more dangerous than Trump
"Welcoming the competition" is insanely out of touch. This isn't a game. This isn't a show. This is about power and how the American people are treated. We have terrible standards of living for a first world country. The GOP would make it even worse. Doing anything to strengthen them needs to be opposed. Otherwise we will never have the quality of life of Denmark. And if thats the case then every American with a brain should just emigrate to Scandinavia now
Otherwise we will never have the quality of life of Denmark
Eff that defeatist attitude. We should settle for nothing less, and it’s right there just ahead where we can almost see it. It is achievable, yes in the US. We need to prioritize it, vote for it, demand it.
Do I need to throw some tea in the harbor to get everyone’s attention?
No. I'm not saying anything. I didn't write the fucking article.
So you agree with me and disagree with the article?
Typical
The poster above you didn't put the entire article. Their post was merely the snippet from the end of it.
Earlier on, the article stated:
The Atlantic is a heterodox place, staffed by freethinkers, and for some of us, Kamala Harris’s policy views are too centrist, while for others they’re too liberal.
In other words, this endorsement is the decision of more than one person. It isn't contradictory for different people to want different things. The whole point was that multiple people have found multiple reasons to come to the same conclusion.
But the article isn't behind a paywall, and the link is right there. In the search to make sense of an extracted quote, the original source is a good place to start.
How does that help? If it's plausible that she'll restore the GOP then that's very bad