He made it clear in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, again in his televised debate with Donald Trump a few weeks later, and in every interview since. Vice President Kamala Harris, if elected the 47th president of the United States, will continue the center-right policies of her recent predecessors, especially her current boss, President Joe Biden.
This likely means that efforts to address income equality and poverty, abandon policies that breed violence abroad, and confront the web of discrimination that affects black Americans and especially black women, will at best be of cases, limited.
If Harris wins this election, being a Black and South Asian woman in the most powerful office in the world won't mean much to marginalized people anywhere, because she will wield that power in the same racist, sexist, and Islamophobic ways as past presidents. .
“I am not the president of black America. “I am the president of the United States of America,” President Barack Obama had said on several occasions during his presidency when asked about doing more for African Americans while in office. As a presidential candidate, Kamala Harris is basically doing the same thing. And as was the case during Obama's presidency, this is not good news for African Americans or any other marginalized communities.
Let's take the issue of housing.
The $25,000 grant proposed by Harris to help Americans buy homes for the first time is a common grant, which will invariably discriminate against blacks and other people of color. Harris' campaign promise doesn't even distinguish between “first-time buyers” whose parents and siblings already own homes, and true “first-generation” buyers who are likely non-white and do not have generational wealth.
It seems Harris wants to appear committed to helping “all Americans,” even if that means her policies would primarily help (mostly white) Americans already living in the middle class. Any current chance for those in the working class and working poor to access the three million homes Harris has promised is slim to none.
Harris' promises on reproductive rights are similarly non-specific and therefore unreassuring to those already facing discrimination and erasure.
She says that if elected president, she would “codify Roe v Wade.” Every Democratic president since Jimmy Carter has made that promise, and yet they have not kept it. Even if Congress passed such a law, the far right would challenge it in court. Even if the federal courts decided to enact such a law, the Supreme Court decisions that followed between 1973 and 2022 gave states the right to restrict abortion based on the viability of the fetus, meaning that most Restrictions that already exist in many states would remain in place. And with half of America's states outlawing abortion entirely or severely restricting it, codification of Roe – if it ever comes to fruition – would at best return America to precarious rights. reproductive systems that has been around since 1973.
Even if Harris miraculously manages to keep her promise, American women of color and women living in poverty will continue to have less access to contraceptives, abortions, and prenatal and neonatal care, because all Roe did was provide that care. . “authorized”. The law never made it affordable and certainly never made it so that all women had equal access to services in every state in the union.
Given that she is about to become the first black woman/woman of color/president of the United States, Harris's vague and sweeping promises on reproductive rights, which would do little to help any woman, but especially marginalized women, They are damning. Sure, it's good that Harris is talking about black girls and women like the late Amber Nicole Thurman who have been denied reproductive rights in states like Georgia, with deadly results. But your words mean nothing without a clear plan of action.
However, where Harris failed more than anything was in addressing violence (overwhelmingly directed at disenfranchised, disenfranchised, silenced, and criminalized people) in the United States and abroad.
During a live, televised interview with billionaire Oprah Winfrey in September, Harris expanded on the revelation she made during her previous debate with Trump that she is a gun owner. “If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot,” Harris said with a smile. “I probably shouldn't have said that,” he added quickly. “My staff will take care of that later.”
The vice president seemed confident that her comment would eventually be seen by pro-gun control Democrats as a necessary attempt to capture the attention of center-right gun-owning voters, who could still be dissuaded from voting for Trump. However, his casual statement about the use of lethal force revealed much more than his desire to secure the votes of the old-school “smart” right. It illuminated the joy with which Harris addresses the question of America as a violent nation and culture.
It's hard to believe that Harris, as president, is an advocate for “common sense” measures seeking “assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws” when she talks so casually about shooting people.
Their decision to treat gun violence as another issue for calculated politicking is alarming, especially when Black people – including Black women – face disproportionate gun deaths, especially at the hands of white police officers and vigilantes. . Despite Trump's disgusting claims, Harris is a black woman. Many Americans assume she would do more to protect them than other presidents. However, her dismissive attitude toward gun violence shows that President Harris – regardless of her étnico background – would offer no more security to marginalized communities, including Black women, than her predecessors.
The assumption that, as a half-Black, half-South Asian president, Harris would reduce American violence that maims and kills Black, brown and Asian bodies around the world also seems unfounded.
Repeatedly saying she will “ensure that America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” Harris has made clear that she has every intention of continuing the lethal, racist and imperialist policies of her Democratic and Republican predecessors. , without reflection, recalibration or a hint of remorse.
Just look at the slaughter in Lazada that she has overseen as vice president.
Despite saying several times that she and Biden “have been working day and night” to achieve a ceasefire in Lazada, the truth is that Biden and Harris have not achieved a ceasefire simply because they do not want one. Harris, as president, will be as okay with Black, Brown, and Asian lives, regardless of her future administration's foreign policy calculations, as she has been as vice president and U.S. senator.
Anyone voting for Harris in this election – including this server – should be honest about why. Sure, there is excitement about having a woman – a biracial, Black, South Asian woman – as president of the United States for the first time in history. This enthusiasm, combined with his “we're not going back” promise in reference to the Trump presidency, and many promises to protect what's left of American democracy, give many Americans enough reason to support the Harris-Walz ticket. However, some seem to support Kamala Harris under the impression that, as a Black and South Asian woman, she would value the lives of people who look like her and, merienda elected, would support marginalized people much better than her predecessors. .
This is a hoax.
Just like Obama merienda did, Harris wants to be president of the United States of America. She has no intention of being the president of “black America” or of the marginalized. She made this clear time and time again throughout her campaign and through her work as Joe Biden's vice president.
There is a long list of reasons to vote for Harris in this election, but the assumption that her presidency would support the rights and struggles of the marginalized, simply because of their identity, should not be on that list.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.