Kamala Harris’s style over substance in accepting nomination

Free of anxiety about Joe Biden’s cognitive ability and age, the Democratic National Convention projected an atmosphere of energy and optimism as it endorsed Kamala Harris as the first black woman to contest the US presidency. At a historic moment, the party appeared ready for a fresh start. Ms Harris, or her speechwriter, whose words she delivered very well, had a few catchy lines about putting “country above party and self” and making good use of the phrase she used as a prosecutor when appearing before a judge: “Kamala Harris, for the people”. It reminded victims of crime that “no one should be made to fight alone”. Her characterisation of Donald Trump as “an unserious man” cut through. In a few weeks, despite the baggage of the Biden presidency, for which she bears some responsibility, she has emerged as competitive. Her account of her childhood and background was good.

Many American voters, regardless of political allegiance, would be pleased to see their nation move beyond the deeply flawed Biden-Trump era. Ms Harris’s acceptance speech, unfortunately for the quality of the election race, provided nothing in the way of economic policy detail as to how to do so. The issue of reducing the US government’s debt, which has risen by about $US4 trillion ($5.9 trillion) under Joe Biden’s and her watch, was not broached. It needs to be, by both candidates and both major parties in the congressional contest. Washington is borrowing $US1 trillion every 100 days, enough to hit $US36 trillion by election day on November 5. Without providing specifics Ms Harris also talked a big-spending game, promising to maintain social security and Medicare and to end the housing shortage. A week ago she resorted to rank populism, promising first homebuyers grants of $US25,000 and price controls on groceries that would disrupt supply chains. The promise in her acceptance speech of an “opportunity economy” might have had impact had she explained how to achieve it.

Her pledge to ensure the US military was “the strongest and most lethal force in the world” was starkly at odds with her view four years ago when she “unequivocally” agreed with Bernie Sanders about “reducing the defence budget and redirecting funding to communities in need”. While she said little on strategic policy, Ms Harris drew applause for supporting Israel’s right to self-defence and for an end to the suffering in Gaza, reiterating that she and Mr Biden were working towards a ceasefire “such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realise their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination”. She did not mention how Hamas, the main impediment to achieving those goals, should be sidelined.

Her attempt to score points on border security fell flat. It was the main task Mr Biden assigned her and she failed abysmally. In contrast with the Democrats’ lack of policy substance on economic, foreign policy and border security challenges, the party has only one concrete policy, as Adam Creighton wrote this week: “legislating abortion rights along the lines of Roe v Wade, the overturned Supreme Court decision that has become the motivating event of the party’s campaign”.

Undecided voters hoping to hear more economic detail will have to wait for the presidential candidates’ first debate on September 10 in Philadelphia. Ms Harris has the wind in her sails after picking up the pieces for the Democrats in the wake of Mr Biden’s incoherence in his first and last debate with Mr Trump in June. Mr Trump, who is sounding rattled as Ms Harris’s star rises, will face a sterner test in the upcoming debate. He will be the loser if he gives in to his natural inclination to dish out insults such as communist, bitch and crazy. He will put Ms Harris under severe pressure, however, if he pierces her threadbare policies, especially on the economy, where she is highly vulnerable and voters are most concerned.