Harris’ actions—from backing punitive laws to pro-military and conservative border rhetoric—contradict the progressive values she publicly champions.

Vice President Kamala Harris has long positioned herself as a “progressive prosecutor.”

Now, for some ostensibly “democratic” reason, she has become her party’s nominee for president, having had the benefit of skipping the presidential preference primary process to which every other modern-day candidate has been subject.

Despite a 2020 primary bid that ended in failure, Harris is back to reinvent herself once again, this time, attempting to pass herself off as working-class success story. This is in apparent contradiction of her privileged background, which includes being the daughter of two college professors, and the granddaughter of a diplomat.

However, when it comes to this newly chiseled “of the people” image, her past actions and current rhetoric reveal significant contradictions, challenging this most recent version of her public persona.

As District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General of California, she implemented policies and upheld systems that many progressives consider antithetical to their values—some even bordering on authoritarianism.

Her newfound embracing of fracking, her recent statements on military power and border security raise additional concerns about her alignment with establishment interests rather than the progressive change she claims to champion.

The Marijuana Prosecutions Hypocrisy

While Harris now supports marijuana decriminalization and expungement, her past as a prosecutor paints a different picture.

During her time as Attorney General, she oversaw the prosecution of thousands for marijuana offenses, a significant portion of whom were disproportionately Black and Brown, according to what we know about marijuana-related arrests.

What’s more, she also opposed a statewide ballot measure to legalize cannabis in 2010, when she was San Francisco’s District Attorney, while running to be state attorney general.

During an interview on The Breakfast Club radio show in 2019, Harris admitted to smoking marijuana in college, saying, "And I inhaled," in a humorous nod to Bill Clinton’s infamous comment on the subject.

She then referenced her Jamaican heritage, saying “come on, I’m half Jamaican!” reducing her heritage to stereotypes about Jamaicans and marijuana use.

The flippant joke led to a public rebuke from her father, who criticized her for dragging out a tired old trope, further underscoring an inconsistency between her words and her supposed values.

Ironically, it is so-called progressives who are usually the first to call out microaggressions like this, though mostly only when committed by members of the opposing party.

The remark further brings to the surface the apparent hypocrisy with which Harris can joke about her own marijuana use, while shrugging off the reality that she oversaw the prosecution of so many for marijuana-related offenses while she was Attorney General.

Add to this the notion that she’s been admonished by a Superior Court judge for withholding information about a criminal lab tech found guilty of stealing cocaine, and it appears as though Harris is only interested in selectively enforcing the law (the lab tech, a middle-aged white woman, got probation, a $5,000 fine and home confinement, for those curious).

Admittedly, Harris’ stance on marijuana has shifted in recent years, a shift that has inexplicably aligned her with her republican counterpart, fellow comelately cannabis supporter Donald Trump.

Despite the mainstream appeal of her newfound passion for decriminalization, her past actions still resonate negatively for some voters, as well as those former “convicts” now navigating the obstacles that come with having a criminal past.

Truancy Laws and Criminalizing Poverty

Harris once crafted a truancy law that punished the parents of children who missed school also highlights her punitive approach to governance. The law, which threatened parents with fines and jail time, disproportionately targeted low-income families, who once again, are disproportionately affected by the increasing criminalization of poverty.

This, combined with the already existing economic obstacles, would exacerbate the very conditions that lead to chronic absenteeism.

Rather than offering resources and support to struggling families, the law punished them for their circumstances, further entrenching cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement.

Harris since has expressed “regret” about this “unintended consequence.”

Though, one might wonder how such a consequence could presumably go unforeseen by someone qualified to hold the office Harris occupied, considering the wealth of data regarding socio-economic disparities and the subsequent disproportionate policing of people of color, which is publicly available.

The reasoning Harris has used to support her policy—framing truancy as a strain on society—in addition to her draconian penalization for parents of truant children should raise red flags for any progressive interested in criminal justice reform.

Laid bare, the similarities between these concepts and those foundational to the racist “broken windows” theory of policing are uncomfortably kindred.

Not only does this excessively punitive approach to policing serve to entrap impoverished minorities in a veritable debtor’s prison, but it also hardly seems to align with the image of a so-called “progressive prosecutor.”

Delayed Release of Prisoners and Cheap Labor

During her time as Attorney General, Harris’s office had a habit of fighting to keep innocent people locked up, even after evidence had exonerated them.

In some cases, her office was found guilty of submitting fraudulent confessions, demonstrating the dubious lengths to which the administration would go to secure a guilty verdict.

In others, like the case of Jamal Truelove, her office cost the taxpayers $13.mil after wrongfully convicting him. This, despite Harris being outspoken in her perceived infallibility, going so far as to praise the “brave” eyewitness, who falsely accused Truelove of the crime.

Similarly, her office argued against the early release of non-violent prisoners, citing the need for their labor in fighting California’s wildfires.

This reliance on prison labor—typically compensated at rates as low as $1 per hour—mirrors the exploitation of incarcerated individuals for profit, a practice that amounts to little more than modern-day slavery.

Despite claiming “shock” when she learned about the scandal through media reports, her administration’s active defense of these practices speaks to a disturbing pattern of upholding exploitative policies.

Arguably, the notion that Harris was unaware of the goings on of those directly below her holds about as much veracity as Trump’s claim that he called in the national guard, on Jan. 6, as soon as he saw the reports of what was happening—this, despite evidence that suggests he resisted advisors’ pleas to call them in as the events unfolded.

Such practices should raise deep concerns for progressives, especially when those incarcerated—disproportionately people of color—are forced to work in dangerous conditions for minimal pay.

Harris’s defense of this system calls into question her commitment to justice and equality, and it undermines her supposed alignment with progressive ideals focused on human dignity and the abolition of exploitative labor systems.

Jailhouse Informant Scandal

In 2015, while California Attorney General, Harris initiated an investigation into the Orange County jailhouse informant scandal, a case involving law enforcement's illegal use of informants to obtain confessions from inmates, often without proper legal procedures.

This scandal exposed systemic abuse and corruption within the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and many hoped Harris’s investigation would bring much-needed transparency and accountability.

However, despite the high-profile nature of the case, Harris's probe resulted in no charges being brought against the officials involved.

Ultimately, her eventual successor closed the case, leaving Orange County authorities to investigate themselves—an outcome that rarely yields credible results.

In hindsight, the fact that the investigation ended without any charges being filed or a clear explanation of its findings seems to indicate one of two things:

At best, the inaction of Harris and co. was an example of incompetence when it came to implementing the power of the law.

At worst, however, the implications suggest that the AG never had any intention of enacting change.

Instead, her motives might have been politically expedient, or, perhaps, just another in a series of apparent overcorrections in an attempt to garner favor with various police departments with whom she’s found herself at odds throughout her tenure.

Kamala Learns How to Play the Game

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time Harris sold her supposed progressive values for the sake of getting into good graces, and it’s unlikely it will be her last.

After declining to seek the death penalty for a cop killer, an actual testament to her principled approach, Harris experienced extreme blowback from the police department.

Even Diane Feinstein dunked on her during the cop’s funeral, apparently spooking Harris from ever standing up for her principles again.

Following the public shaming she endured, Harris emerged with a new perspective, one apparently eager to please the establishment.

In 2007, Harris had an opportunity to throw her weight behind a bill that would’ve required special counsel to oversee police shootings. However, she refused to endorse the policy, which, as fate would have it, the police union also happened to oppose.

In 2014, the overcompensation continued when a federal judge ruled that the state's death penalty system was so dysfunctional that it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Despite her supposed aversion to capital punishment, Harris mustered up the courage to file an appeal to argue against the ruling. Ultimately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Harris, allowing the death penalty to persist in California.

Then, in 2015, she fought against a mandate that would’ve required police across the state to wear bodycams, an initiative favored by a majority of voters at the time.

Pro-Military Rhetoric and U.S. Imperialism

Harris’ recent statement at the 2024 Democratic National Convention that, as Commander in Chief, she would ensure America has “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” is particularly jarring for progressives.

For the record, the remarks come at a time when there are roughly 750 US military installations throughout approximately 80 countries on this planet.

Put simply, this rhetoric aligns more with militaristic right-wing nationalism than with progressive aversion to militarism. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined, a status quo that Harris seems intent on maintaining.

For those who oppose endless wars and harm of U.S. imperialism, Harris’ promise to build the most lethal military reflects a troubling alignment with the military-industrial complex.

The idea of fortifying an already domineering global military stranglehold—often at the expense of human rights abroad—stands in direct opposition to the progressive vision of reducing militarism and fighting for the collective liberation of all people.

Border Security and Anti-Immigrant Dog Whistles

Harris’ stance on border security also reveals a troubling alignment with more conservative, even xenophobic, positions.

Her rhetoric around securing the border, depicting those crossing a border into their ancestral land as drug runners and human smugglers often mirrors the dog whistles used by GOP politicians to appeal to white supremacist factions, indeed, a majority of white Americans in general.

Harris has recently advocated for sweeping immigration reform, voicing her support for increased border security and more personnel at the border, positions that strike uncomfortably close to the fearmongering used by the far-right.

This rhetoric begins to make a bit more sense, however, when one considers the fact that as DA, Harris supported a policy of reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to ICE, an action that undermines the very nature of San Francisco as a Sanctuary City.

Despite Harris’ tough talk about Trump’s treatment of migrants, the Biden-Harris administration has frequently been criticized for continuing family separations and the deporting of migrants at rates comparable to those under Trump’s administration.

As part of the current administration, she’s been in lock step with Biden, who has shown where his priorities are. Unsurprisingly, he is willing to throw Central and South American migrants under the bus, while accommodating decidedly “whiter” European allies with whom they have escalated a pair of proxy wars in the Donbas and Middle East.

That is to say that Biden’s move earlier this year, the one that “shut down the border,” was ultimately an effort to knock loose some additional funding for wars in Ukraine and Israel, respectively.

The legal precedent under which the Biden Harris administration has acted is based, perhaps unsurprisingly, on racist policy predicated upon perceived American supremacy over the original, rightful inhabitants of the region in question.

Harris’ rhetoric around border security not only undermines the humanitarian concerns around immigration but also fuels the very narratives that vilify migrants and reinforce a carceral approach to immigration enforcement.

By advocating for increased border security and surveillance measures, her stance echoes conservative initiatives that have historically been used to implement harsher immigration policies, which disproportionately impact vulnerable communities.

This approach also strengthens the infrastructure of detention centers and border patrol practices, which have long been criticized for human rights abuses, reinforcing a system that criminalizes migration rather than addressing its root causes through humane and comprehensive approaches.

For progressives who believe in dismantling the systems that criminalize and dehumanize migrants, Harris’ promises to enact even stricter border policy are dangerously regressive.

A Candidate at Odds with Progressive Ideals

Kamala Harris has built a platform that claims to embody progressive values, yet her record tells a different story. Her support for punitive laws, prison labor, increased militarism, and enhanced border security reveals a politician who is more aligned with establishment interests than with the progressive movement.

Her affinity for quid pro quo deals and political opportunism may be cause for some to praise her savvy, but those of us living outside the reach of ‘blue wave’ spin rooms and echo chambers are less impressed.

When allegations of pyramid schemes were levied against Herbalife, and a subsequent inquiry was requested, Harris' chose not to pursue an investigation.

This brought about questions about an apparent conflict of interest that arguably existed, given her connection to the Herbalife’s legal representation by way of her husband, a senior member of the firm.

In an era in which BlackLivesMatter (BLM) has led efforts to defund police and divert that funding to better community resources, it’s quite a contradiction for those who claim to support these initiatives to then throw their support behind a person who, by all indications, embraces values diametrically opposed to their own.

For those demanding a leader committed to dismantling systems of oppression and inequality, Harris’ past actions should be disqualifying to say the least.

Harris’ role in prosecuting non-violent offenders for the sake of establishing a “tough on crime” image reflects political opportunism, rather than the values she now claims to uphold.

In 2016 in the wake of a rash of extrajudicial police shootings of unarmed civilians, many called upon Harris to do more to hold killer cops accountable.

Instead, she’s upheld the well-documented blue wall of silence, which evidently extends to District Attorneys who are often in cahoots with the law enforcement entities with which they regularly engage.

When presented with a chance to implement real and transformative change, she chose to double down on her “tough on crime” approach, even going as far as to prosecute a mentally ill woman who was shot by police, after they broke into her residence, a group home for mentally disabled people.

Indeed, her record paints a picture not of some altruistic, benevolent dictator, but of a decidedly more opportunistic one, who seems to want all of the credit with none of the blame

Kamala Harris: Just Another Agent of the State

Times like these bring to mind the ultimately prophetic words of the doomed revolutionary Malcom X, who once said “They will pay one of us to kill one of us just to say it was one of us.”

By this, he was referring, of course, to the long-standing tradition in post-reconstruction America to any exploit presumable progress that is made by integrating underrepresented, marginalized groups into the imperialist institution.

The dubious practice, for instance, of sending a person of color to do the murderous bidding of institutional power, is successful in its attempt to elicit and maintain tacit support amongst id-pols.

This sentiment perfectly encapsulates the role Harris has played at various times throughout her career as a prosecutor and Attorney General, to say nothing of the abuses carried out under the current Biden Harris administration.

Despite her racial and ethnic background, Harris’ actions as an agent of the state have directly contributed to the oppression of Black and Brown communities.

Her complicity in upholding systems of incarceration, mass prosecution, and labor exploitation mirrors the warnings Malcolm X made about individuals from marginalized groups being used to perpetuate systems of oppression.

This is a glaring contradiction on the part of those who championed the BLM message, yet now support Harris without fully considering her past.

While the BLM movement called for an end to systemic racism and police violence, Harris’ role in advancing policies that disproportionately harmed Black lives complicates her cred as a champion of racial justice.

Had the opportunity of an honest primary process been allowed, one in which her values were subject to mainstream examination by an often well-meaning but terribly forgetful electorate, the democrats may have chosen differently.

Of course, this is just one of countless reminders that while partisans on both sides love touting their right to vote as some sort of magical superpower, the actual power lies with the establishment; and boy, does it lie!