Kamala Harris’s Oakland Problem

Dear Readers ... Help me write an uplifting paragraph about the vice president.

Oakland postcard from Wikimedia Commons.

NOTE: Bastiat’s Window makes no political endorsements. Even in private, I don’t tell others how to vote. As I’ve written, I understand why decent, intelligent well-informed, people would vote for (A) Trump, (B) Harris, or (C) neither. I’ve expressed dissatisfaction with recent presidential choices. On policy, I’m iconoclastic—libertarian-ish on economics, conservative on foreign policy and defense, liberal on a sprinkling of issues. Since 2000, I’ve voted for both Democrats and Republicans for president, for senator, and for governor.

---

TRUMP-HARRIS ASYMMETRIES

There are two curious asymmetries to the contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. First (at least among people I encounter) Trump supporters know his behemothic shortcomings well, whereas Harris voters seem barely cognizant of her gaping deficiencies. Second, though this is a coin-toss election, Trump supporters are mostly leaving me alone, whereas Harris supporters—friends, readers, total strangers—are hysterically imploring me to see things their way, insisting that I must, MUST!! scurry to the polls and vote for her. Wondering why Harris can’t get her message across, they emit waves of denial, anger, bargaining, and depression (no acceptance, yet). For these reasons, I offer an essay on Harris, not on Trump.

Perhaps the most fervent Trump supporter [I know]¹ said a few months back:

“Oh, I know the guy is a complete asshole. I don’t want to be his friend. I don’t want to go drinking with him. I damned sure don’t want him marrying my sister. But I like what he accomplished as president, and I don’t want Democrats in the White House.”

Agree or not, that is an intellectually coherent reason to vote for Trump. I could offer the highest respect for a Democrat telling me, similarly:

“Kamala Harris is the most unaccomplished, inconsequential, uninspiring, irresolute major-party nominee of modern times—and perhaps ever. But Donald Trump is the earthly manifestation of Satan, so I’ll vote for Harris.”

I’d offer that person a fist-bump, a high-five, and wish of Godspeed. But I haven’t heard a single Harris supporter say anything remotely like that. And, as I argue below, Kamala Harris is the most unaccomplished, inconsequential, uninspiring, irresolute major-party nominee of modern times—and perhaps ever. You may hate Trump, but he has accomplishments, he has long been consequential, he inspires a sizable portion of the American public, and he is self-sure in the extreme.

Gertrude Stein hailed from Oakland, California and famously said of her hometown, “There’s no there there.” Kamala Harris is also from Oakland, and one could as easily apply Stein’s witticism to Harris.

---

WRITE ONE PARAGRAPH

Whatever YOU think of Trump, his supporters can list myriad characteristics and accomplishments that THEY consider praiseworthy. A Trump supporter could say:

“He built skyscrapers. He saved the Central Park ice rink when the city had failed for years. For decades, he negotiated with hard-nosed New York real estate magnates and foreign governments. He’s an entertaining standup comic. Under his presidency, America enjoyed energy independence, a roaring stock market, and a massive decrease in illegal border-crossings. Directly and indirectly, he shut off funding to Iran and to its proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis. He can be intimidating, as Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan were. He has been a cultural icon for decades. His immensely popular television program offered ordinary Americans insights into business. He sired peace treaties between Israel and four Arab nations. He’s glib and can talk for hours without notes. He was a powerful supporter of Israel. His behavior after being shot was the stuff of legend. He has a wildly enthusiastic base of support. During his presidency, Hamas didn’t invade Israel, and Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. In 2016 and 2024, he faced an impressive array of Republican primary opponents and defeated them all. Thanks to three pathbreaking decisions by his administration, a COVID vaccine was developed, tested, and marketed in the same year that the pandemic hit America. In 2024, he chose a vice-presidential running mate who has proven eloquent and masterful at sparring with the press.”

Challenge to my Democratic friends: can you write a similar paragraph about Kamala Harris? If so, please post it in the comments section. From memory, I can write such a paragraph about any of the other 15 Democratic and 12 Republican nominees of the 20 post-WWII elections. I honestly, sincerely cannot write an equivalent paragraph about Kamala Harris. In writing this piece, I thought, “Maybe I just don’t know her well enough.” So, I went to her Wikipedia page and read it top to bottom. I still can’t write an equivalent paragraph.

I have yet to hear anyone claim that Kamala Harris is eloquent, witty, charming, likable, intimidating, cerebral, focused, heroic, or visionary. I’ve heard no claims that she has a natural base of devotees, a record of outstanding accomplishments, a history of leadership, a coherent ideology, or a good command of policy. The pro-Harris articles I read, and the emails from my Democratic friends argue for Harris on three dimensions: [1] She was elected San Francisco District Attorney, California Attorney General, U.S. Senator, and Vice President. [2] She is not Trump, Republican, or conservative. [3] Her policy positions skew left—particularly on abortion. The problem with [1] is that occupying a position doesn’t mean you’ve accomplished anything in it. When I ask what she accomplished in any of those four positions, crickets chirp. [2] and [3] are true of at least 100,000,000 Americans. Plus, Harris has profoundly undermined [3] by radically shifting her policy stances (e.g., fracking, gun control, illegal immigration, Medicare for All) while declining to explain those shifts.

---

WRITE ONE LINE

Consider what one can say, in brief, about what one could have said about the nominees since WWII—things they did BEFORE being nominated for president:

ADLAI STEVENSON: great wit and erudite public speaker; successful governor who initiated the crafting of a new state constitution. DWIGHT EISENHOWER: led history’s greatest war and saved Western Civilization. RONALD REAGAN: staved off Communist infiltration of the Screen Actors Guild; two-term governor of the largest state; radio commentator on politics and policy; orator. JOHN KENNEDY and JOHN McCAIN: survived debilitating war experiences; electrifying personalities. BARRY GOLDWATER and GEORGE McGOVERN: WWII heroes; philosophical trailblazers; decent men beloved by political adversaries.

JIMMY CARTER and BILL CLINTON: cerebral deep-thinkers; led their states out of segregation; DONALD TRUMP and BARACK OBAMA: inspired fervent support among mass movements of disaffected Americans; LYNDON JOHNSON: arguably the most powerful leader in Senate history; inherited the presidency; spearheaded and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. GERALD FORD and BOB DOLE: towering Congressional leaders; HUBERT HUMPHREY: turned the Democratic Party away from segregation and toward racial equality;

GEORGE H. W. BUSH: legendary war hero; staggering résumé with great achievements at each stage; led CIA; orchestrated the opening of Mainland China. RICHARD NIXON: brilliant and highly influential figure in the House and Senate; mastermind of foreign policy; relentless investigator of domestic Communism. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, MITT ROMNEY, and GEORGE W. BUSH: highly successful governors; also successful outside of politics (Dukakis in law and academe, Romney and Bush in business);

WALTER MONDALE and AL GORE: influential senators and consequential vice presidents; Mondale redefined the vice presidency as a “full partnership” with the president; Gore’s 1999 inelegant statement that “I took the initiative in creating the Internet,” heavily lampooned by humorists and opponents, was essentially accurate. JOHN KERRY: war hero; nationally renowned opinion-maker on Vietnam War; influential senator. HILLARY CLINTON: oversaw Bill Clinton’s massively ambitious attempt at healthcare reform; eight years as highly visible and impactful senator; Secretary of State in tumultuous period.

JOE BIDEN: chaired Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees, with outsized influence in both. HARRY TRUMAN: distinguished Senate career; inherited the presidency; dropped the atomic bombs; began the containment of Communism. THOMAS DEWEY: legendary New York district attorney who relentlessly and successfully pursued the Mafia; philosophical leader of moderate Republicanism; arguably the 20^th century’s most successful New York governor.

Try crafting a similar entry for Kamala Harris—just one line. (“Isn’t Trump? Got elected to several offices? Oversaw border policy?”) Again, if you can do better, please post it in the comments.

---

FIELDS, FISH, FREEDOM, FUTURE versus VENN, PAGE, TIME, 32

For a prospective president and leader of the Free World, most troubling of all is Harris’s near-dysphasic incapacity to communicate. Donald Trump and Joe Biden are very likely the two most shambolic, meandering public speakers ever to occupy the White House (with the possible exception of Andrew Johnson when he was drunk). But next to Kamala Harris, Trump and Biden are Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. In her entire run for the presidency, she has avoided press conferences and minimized interviews. She spews platitudes, answers most questions with repetitious non sequiturs, and has stumbled badly, even on the friendliest of venues—The View, Stephen Colbert, Sixty Minutes, the Call Her Daddy sex podcast, and Charlamagne tha God.

In 1948, the incredibly accomplished Thomas E. Dewey (see above description) made a disastrous strategic decision to avoid controversial statements in his presidential campaign. He assumed that he was a shoo-in and wanted to avoid risks. After his shocking defeat by Harry Truman, the Louisville Courier Journal famously wrote:

“No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.”

The Louisville Courier Journal could not have foreseen Kamala Harris, who seems incapable of crafting sentences on agriculture, fish, freedom, or the future. If she loses—and that’s a big if—the equivalent epitaph could be:

“Hopefully, no presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that her major speeches can be boiled down to these historic ten sentences: I love Venn diagrams. A.I. is two letters. I come from a middle-class family. Ukraine is a country. It’s time to turn the page. Time is significant. We need an opportunity society. Believe in what can be, unburdened by what has been. I am not Donald Trump or Joe Biden. There are 32 days left … 32 days … 32 days.”

Recently, some commentator touting Harris observed that one need not like her to vote for her—that one is actually voting not for Harris, but rather for the Democratic administration that will surround her. Once again, that is a perfectly legitimate, coherent reason to vote for her, if you are so inclined. But if so, you are not voting for a president. You are voting for a regency—with Harris as an inconsequential figurehead who signs papers and offers her thumbprint should the regents decide to press the nuclear button.

Caveat Emptor—or in this case, Caveat Nominator.

---

Robert F. Graboyes is president of RFG Counterpoint, LLC in Alexandria, Virginia. An economist, journalist, and musician, he holds five degrees, including a PhD in economics from Columbia University. An award-winning professor, in 2014, he received the Reason Foundation’s Bastiat Prize for Journalism. He publishes Bastiat’s Window, a Substack-based journal of economics, science, and culture. His music compositions are at YouTube.com/@RFGraboyes/videos.

1. I accidentally omitted “I know” when I posted.