On Thursday, Kamala Harris offered CNN viewers a glimpse of what her presidency might entail: consensus without clear direction or leadership.
CNN’s Dana Bash asked the same first question I would have asked: “What would you do on day one in the White House?”
There was no response.
Harris mentioned she would “support and strengthen the middle class,” which didn’t provide a clear answer, so Bash pressed further.
Response 2.0: “implementing my plan for what I call an opportunity economy.”
Bash decided to move on, recognizing there was no benefit in continuing. Harris appears to lack a clear sense of priority or policy direction. She uses buzzwords like “middle class” and “opportunity economy” and speaks of a vague “plan,” but she seems unclear about the country’s needs or her own top priorities.
When asked about changes in her policies since 2019—such as on fracking or the border—Harris responded that “my values have not changed.”
Well, what are they?
We do not know — and nor, apparently, does Harris. She mentioned the “climate crisis,” and said that we should hold ourselves to “deadlines around time.” Isn’t that what all deadlines are?
This was a classic example of the “word salad” for which Harris is known—less incoherent than in the past, but still marked by tautology and repetitive techniques.
Harris added that “it is important to build consensus,” which is true, but it does not tell us about what she believes.
Tim Walz, who had been mockingly referred to as Harris’s “emotional support animal” during her first interview after over five weeks of campaigning, was similarly evasive.
When questioned about his past exaggerations regarding his military service and his incorrect claims about using in vitro fertilization (IVF) to conceive children, Walz avoided providing explanations and instead shifted the focus to his critics, claiming he would never “demean another member’s service” and that his critics want “to take those rights away.”
These responses were typical of a seasoned politician but did not constitute direct answers.
While Harris and Walz provided evasive answers on CNN, former President Donald Trump gave straightforward responses at a town hall in Wisconsin, moderated by former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI).
For instance, when asked how he would address inflation and make life more affordable, Trump responded clearly: “We are going to get energy prices down,” presenting a specific policy and priority.
Harris’s eventual response on inflation was to address “price gouging.” However, inflation is not driven by “price gouging”—particularly not in groceries—and implementing price caps, as she seems to suggest, would likely be detrimental.
She also proposed expanding the child tax credit and offering $25,000 to first-time home buyers. Even if Congress managed to fund these initiatives, they would not tackle inflation and could potentially exacerbate it.
CNN’s Dana Bash raised the obvious follow-up question: assuming these policies would be effective, given that Harris has served as vice president for over three years, “why haven’t you implemented them already?”
Harris responded by saying “we had to recover as an economy” first, then shifted the focus to insulin. She reiterated President Joe Biden’s claim that they capped insulin prices at $35 per month for seniors, though this was only after reversing Trump’s existing policy to reduce insulin costs.
Overall, Harris performed reasonably well—though, puzzlingly, she was seated at a table that made her appear small in a dark studio cluttered with coffee mugs. In contrast, Trump’s town hall featured American flags.
Dana Bash deserves credit for asking fundamental questions and providing reasonable follow-ups. However, she missed one key question: if Harris has “spent [her] career inviting diversity of opinion,” as she claimed, could she give an example?
There likely would have been no satisfactory answer.
Harris comes from the politically uniform environment of San Francisco and California and has rarely faced significant opposition. For her, “consensus” means appeasing various factions within the Democratic Party. This explains her preference for Walz over Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania—a stronger candidate from a swing state—who was opposed by the Democrats’ vocal anti-Israel (and antisemitic) progressive left.
Regarding Israel, Harris stated she would not impose an arms embargo but also did not prioritize removing Hamas. Instead, she said, “we have got to get a deal done.”
This encapsulates Harris’s approach: deals without clear direction, and “consensus” without leadership. When seeking “consensus,” the most extreme elements often dictate the agenda. This is why Harris adopted radical positions in 2019—views she is now distancing herself from—and signals a troubling trend for the future.
