Erin Molan: Kamala’s phony brand of caring the kind that just brings cruelty

When a friend told me why they’d vote for Kamala Harris if they lived in America, it made realise there’s something people get wrong when it comes to voting, a writes Erin Molan.

In a recent discussion on US politics a friend told me she would vote for the Democrats if she lived in the States because she was “soft, emotional and cared too much”.

I asked her to explain why that party, and Kamala Harris specifically, exclusively catered to those feelings.

She couldn’t articulate one sound reason, but mumbled something to the effect that “they say they want to help everyone… give them all medical care, and they let so many poor immigrants in”.

Politics is certainly perception, and, unfortunately, many people who aren’t actively engaged or well versed in politics and global affairs perceive the difference between the right and the left this way.

I’m not talking here about the ‘if you don’t vote progressive at 25 you have no heart, and if you don’t vote conservative at 35 you have no brain’ adage, but rather the belief held by many that a conservative, or right leaning party – the Liberal/National coalition in Australia – cannot provide compassionate and caring government in a developed and prosperous society.

This column will be read by many Baby Boomers who recall vividly their grandparents telling them that the youth of their day needed to experience a war like that of 1939-45 to truly appreciate how very fortunate we were in this Lucky Country of ours.

That sentiment still has profound relevance today, and in privileged, rich democracies like the United States and Australia, I think it is due in no small part to the fact that our equally privileged citizens are yet to experience the downside of ‘soft policies’.

Kamala Harris may be a big supporter of Ukraine, but her forays into diplomacy did nothing to deter Vladimir Putin. Picture: AFP

I reminded my friend that Harris was sent to Europe to deter Russia invading … that went well.

How much “kindness and care” do you think the people of Ukraine feel right now?

She’s also failed to control the most important job she was given: the border.

How much “kindness and care” do you think is felt at present by those southern communities battling the almost insurmountable social, educational, health and law and order challenges of the uncontrolled flow of illegals?

The migrant crisis grew so bad under her watch as border tzar that Texas sent migrants to be dropped off near the house of Kamala Harris. Picture: AFP

This mentality has really started to drive me crazy, the notion that the those on the left are kind and caring and those on the right are not.

I’ve never considered myself as belonging wholly to either category.

I am conservative leaning when it comes to our approach to the economy, national security and defence but am rather progressive when it comes to a number of social issues.

If I should be so bold, I’d declare myself just fairly sensible and rational.

So why then does it transpire that if you agree security checks are prudent for those coming out of a terrorist hot spot, you are purportedly heartless?

It is an utterly ridiculous notion and highly offensive to be frank.

I write this for those who have been similarly offended, who maybe think a little bit like me. Who might anguish over the mere thought of a sick child, a tragic accident or graphic images coming out of war BUT who also understand how the world works, and that alleviating human suffering, and seemingly easy problem fixes, aren’t always possible, nor black and white.

That showing kindness can sometimes appear cruel.

Who understand stopping boats illegally coming to our shores isn’t about bigotry or being callous but the desire to end the horrific drownings at sea occurring all too frequently.

To deter and eradicate the lowest of all scum — people smugglers.

That extensive background checks are an indispensable component of government’s first responsibility, to keep our population safe.

Voting is a big responsibility in a country such as Australia. Picture: Getty Images

And staying on the topic of responsibility, back to those pesky political perceptions of those of us who don’t live and breathe politics.

In Australia we have a legal obligation to vote in our federal, state and local government elections — interestingly, we do not have any legal direction on how seriously, or judiciously, we should fulfil that obligation.

Should it entail an hour dedicated to the policy platforms of all candidates or parties, should it involve reciting candidates names and CVs prior to being given a ballot, or should it require ticking a box to confirm your vote is informed and considered?

Unlikely, of course, all of those options. And even less likely in the USA where voting is not compulsory.

So into the hall with our ballot papers we lucky democracy beneficiaries stream, labelled by many purely on the basis of our vote as either uncaring, or as too soft.

But like our governments, we also need to do our due diligence. Study what is on offer, and understand the development of policies.

Recognise that sometimes in this big, bad world we need our leaders to make tough, and ostensibly cruel decisions to keep us safe and to protect the way of life we have achieved here, in the best country on earth.

We must always welcome those less fortunate when we can, and give back in return for winning the lottery of life.

Absolutely ensure that our safety net catches everyone who needs it. But these measures should never come at the expense of our values, our integrity and most importantly, our safety.

Taking our vote a little more seriously won’t only result in a more accurate reflection of our preferred government for the next three years, but it will also reveal to each lucky Australian that, just as in the USA, no party here has the monopoly on ‘caring’… least of all the ones which arrogantly and boldly claim they do.