“Wall Street Journal” Rejects Kamala Harris, By Charles Taylor (Florida)
Here is an extract, at the 11th hour, of the most fateful election of our time, where the Wall Street Journal rejects Kamala Harris as becoming president. This is a good counter to the establishment claim by The Economist that Harris has rejected her radical past. No, she has not, everything is still there including a hard Left climate change alarmist agenda. As well, this dark fate is coming up next week: "The worst result would be a Harris victory with a Democratic sweep of Congress. Then it's Kamala bar the door. She is on record as wanting to break the 60-vote Senate filibuster rule and to restructure the Supreme Court. This would make for an unbridled progressive agenda that would rig voting rules, augment union power, control more of the private economy, and add D.C. and Puerto Rico as states."
They do not say this, but the conclusion from this is the end of America, and the unravelling of the West. And it may begin next week.
"Ms. Harris has presented herself as new based largely on her biography. But as far as policies and coalition go, she represents more of the same, and not merely of the last four years. Her candidacy is best understood as an attempt to continue the progressive political wave that began in 2006 with the GOP defeat in Congress and rolled ashore as a tsunami amid the financial panic of 2008. She is running for what essentially would be Barack Obama's fourth progressive term.
[…]
But we have been searching in vain for signs that she would break from, or even temper, the progressive excess that defines the current Democratic Party. Her endorsement by anti-Trump Republicans isn't that sign because it's based solely on loathing for Mr. Trump. A token GOP appointment to her cabinet would mean little unless it's a major post.
On domestic policy, she is offering more Bidenomics without the label. She wants to expand the entitlement state beyond even what Mr. Biden has—for elder and child care, housing, a larger Affordable Care Act, and more. Her proposed tax increases are nearly as extensive as Mr. Biden's, running past $4 trillion over 10 years. She shows every sign of wanting to expand and accelerate the climate corporate welfare and mandates that distort investment at enormous taxpayer cost but no benefit to global temperatures.
This might be tolerable if Ms. Harris showed evidence on foreign affairs that she understands the world's current dangerous moment. Yet she defends the last four years as a security success, despite two wars, adversaries on the march, and the U.S. Navy playing whack-a-missile in the Red Sea.
She talks about having a strong military but has failed to propose anything to rebuild it as threats proliferate. If she nurtures an inner Harry Truman that would explain to the public the need for better defenses, we haven't seen the evidence. If she does win, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will quickly test her mettle. She seems unprepared for those tests.
All of this reflects the progressive advisers and the coalition she'd bring to the Oval Office. We wrote last week about her climate adviser's desire to eliminate all fossil fuels, and her foreign policy aides are on board for appeasing Iran and putting restraints on Israel.
There are no Scoop Jacksons or Joe Liebermans in today's Democratic Party. Ms. Harris would have to reach out to GOP hawks the way FDR made Republicans Henry Stimson and Frank Knox his Secretary of War and the Navy, respectively, in 1940. She has shown no such historical memory or the political courage to do it.
A Harris Presidency with a GOP Senate would check some of her worst policy instincts, at least until 2026 when the Senate map favors Democrats. But most Democrats would read her victory as a political vindication of the last four years. The Sanders-Warren wing of the party would pressure her for more.
The worst result would be a Harris victory with a Democratic sweep of Congress. Then it's Kamala bar the door. She is on record as wanting to break the 60-vote Senate filibuster rule and to restructure the Supreme Court. This would make for an unbridled progressive agenda that would rig voting rules, augment union power, control more of the private economy, and add D.C. and Puerto Rico as states.
Comments