Is Kamala Harris Lying About Policy Now Or Was She Lying Then?

In Donald Trump’s return to X, he asked perhaps the pivotal question of the 2024 election: “Are you better off now than you were when I was president?”

Perhaps second only in importance to that question is this one: “When it comes to your agenda, Vice President Kamala Harris, are you lying now, or were you lying then?” It’s a question Trump will likely have to pose to Harris himself, given the information war regime media are waging on her behalf, having coronated her as the Democrat nominee and formed a complete protective bubble around her in the weeks since.

Harris — or more precisely Harris flacks, since they have been the ones addressing questions about her policy positions — has flip-flopped on banning fracking, “decriminalizing” illegal immigration, and providing universal government health care. She seeks to unburden herself from what has been — namely serving as one of the most left-wing senators during her tenure in the upper chamber, and then as No. 2 in arguably the most radically left-wing administration in American history.

In picking Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate too, she has seemed to embrace a kindred spirit. This is a man who has granted all manner of taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens, who seeks to provide a ladder to help fellow prospective “newcomers” catapult over any border wall. This is a supplier of tampons to boys’ bathrooms, an installer of a Covid snitch line, a shill for socialism, and a man who allowed George Floyd rioters to set Minneapolis ablaze — with Harris promoting a bail fund for the arsonists. He too has sought to unburden himself from what has been, as illustrated in his disgraceful stolen valor scandal.

How can Harris reconcile her past anti-energy, pro-invasion, health care-system-destroying record, the record of the Biden-Harris White House that so alienated Americans that The Party was forced to jettison its chief figurehead, and the record of her VP pick, with the positions of candidate Kamala? She cannot.

There are only two ways to understand “The Great Reimagining” underway, stipulating that the person now advocating for price controls has not had a genuine change of heart in the opposite direction. One is that Harris is cynical and holds Americans in contempt. She is what she has always been — an authoritarian leftist poised to Make America San Francisco — but, recognizing American voters would reject this fate out of hand, she has to lie, obfuscate, and evade scrutiny about her true beliefs at all costs.

Axios laid this out explicitly, its top editors reporting:

A big part of the Harris plan is to unapologetically change some of her more liberal positions, and claim her White House experience helped change her mind. …

She’s also fine plucking popular Trump ideas, notably ‘no tax on tips’ for service and hospitality workers — popular in Nevada, one of the biggest swing states. …

Her bet: whatever she says in the small, three-month window of her snap campaign will be what sticks. Harris knows most people know little about her. So she believes she can define herself, even if it includes flip-flops and co-opts.

In other words, Harris is trying to pull a fast one on the American people. Axios is conveying her campaign’s apparent view that we are idiots.

The alternative explanation is not much better. It is that Harris is content to repudiate all of her most politically toxic positions because she has no fixed positions at all. That is, she is willing to say or do whatever it takes to seize power.

This would naturally raise questions about why she so badly wants that power, and whether Americans should desire someone who is so power-hungry to be leading the country. It also raises the question of why we should trust that anything she says is true. Vice President Harris “wants to break with Biden on issues on which he’s unpopular,” Axios tells us. But she could just as easily zag after zigging — right back to the Biden-Harris agenda on steroids were she to be elected.

Corporate media, the communications arm of our ruling regime, will do anything and everything it can to protect the frontwoman they installed for the Democrat Party. It is incumbent on the Trump campaign to force the issue of the candidate’s radicalism, cynicism, and duplicity to the fore as best it can in a hostile information environment rigged to promote the regime’s favored narratives and suppress competing ones.

The 2024 election, and indeed the future of the country, may well depend upon it.

Ben Weingarten is editor at large for RealClearInvestigations. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist at Newsweek, and a contributor to the New York Post and Epoch Times, among other publications. Subscribe to his newsletter at weingarten.substack.com, and follow him on Twitter: @bhweingarten.