Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris seems to be confused about the difference between a lawyer taking a position she doesn't believe during a trial, on behalf of a client, and a candidate for president taking a position she doesn't believe during a debate.
"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
12 comments:
This is just another example of the integrity of the Progressive-Democrats who want to rule over us.
Eric Hines
I will take up a role as advocate for the defense.
Harris trained as a lawyer. Lawyers OFTEN are responsible -- duty bound -- to make arguments for positions and principles that they personally do not hold. This usually occurs in controlled venues -- courtrooms, arbitrations, legislative committees. And in training, the venue is DEBATE. A student may be assigned to learn all sides of a dispute, then on a moment's notice be randomly assigned to advocate for one side -- a single facet of a complex solid. And doing the best job of presenting that side involves presenting the rules or laws, and the evidence, AND using rhetorical devices, poetic devices, body language, vocal tricks, imagery, charts, infographics, dance moves ... what ever it takes to sell that side's point of view. That what Harris claims she was doing in the Democratic primary debates.
It's a show. It's no indication of her actual view, or principle, or personality. If you WANT a candidate to reveal those depths, you want some sort of presentation other than a televised debate. And you might be correct to want that. But don't complain about getting what the market is serving up.
Also, recognize that given the hype /advertorial call it what you like nature of the "Debate" and contest before us ... there has not yet been a better champion than Donald Trump.
If you WANT a candidate to reveal those depths, you want some sort of presentation other than a televised debate.
Not at all. If I WANT a candidate to reveal "those depths," I want it done precisely in a televised debate, out in public in front of God and us citizens.
The Progressive-Democratic Party debate wherein Harris laid out her principles was not a child's classroom or debate club debate, nor did it occur within the heavily stylized and insulated studio of a courtroom debate. It wasn't even the cutesy, clubby debate of an Oxford Union debate.
Harris laid out her principles in a political debate wherein politicians argue why the other guy's positions are so bad and why her own are so wonderful. Or just one or the other.
Harris is a talented lawyer and a skilled politician. Words are her stock in trade. She knew exactly what was saying in the debate, what she was going to say as she formed the thought. She knew exactly what she was saying as she tried to make fun of her principles. Such as they are.
Nor am I complaining about what the market is serving. I'm simply pointing out the fundamental dishonesty of Harris and her words.
Eric Hines
I kinda see where J is going. You could say that Harris wished to press Biden in a way that would reveal to her, and Democrat primary voters, if he had actually repudiated the repulsive racism of those segregationist Democrats still in Congress when he started there. In that way she didn't need to believe that he held or holds those views, only that he had seemed to be sympathetic to them at one time. I'm going by second hand impressions here as I didn't personally watch either exchange.
It is telling, and I think rather typical, of Harris that she has a habit of not being able to follow through with a logical extension of her script on the day after it's delivered. This sank her during the primaries, and she doesn't seem to be improving.
A lawyer is representing a client, and the judge and jury understand (or at least should understand) that this is his role.
A candidate in a debate is representing *himself*, and the audience (prospective voters) will assume that he is stating his own opinions.
A political debate is basically a job interview.
I agree 100% with David Foster.
I am both a lawyer and an elected official. I never have any trouble distinguishing between the demands made by the two roles. This doesn't strike me as remotely difficult.
Or, if it does strike Harris as difficult to distinguish the difference, it speaks ill for her judgment and character.
A Silicon Valley startup exec died and went before Saint Peter...who told him, "Since you're a creative guy, we're going to do something a little different. We'll show you both heaven AND hell, and then you can choose which you want."
Why would I choose hell, thinks the guy, but sees no downside in looking at them both. Heaven turns out to look pretty boring...just people sitting on clouds, plucking listlessly at harps.
In hell, on the other hand, there is good music..good food...lots of wine...beautiful women. The choice seemed obvious.
"I choose hell," the man told St Peter.
Instantly the scene changed. There were roaring fires, devils pitchforking sinners, tubs of boiling oil.
"But...I don't understand," the man said. "What was that I saw a few moments ago?"
"Oh, that," said Saint Peter. "That was the DEMO."
Hi Tex,
Without diminishing my regard for you at all, I point out you've omitted one of your roles. You are (or have been) a lawyer, an elected official, AND -- a *candidate* for elective office.
Suppose I task you with the rhetorical chore of elucidating the demands made on a candidate for office and how those differ from the demands made on a office-holder.
In particular, as a official member of a board or body that makes a (compromise) policy decision, elements of which with you profoundly disagree. Do you advocate for the position, or for the duty of the board-as-a-whole to come to that compromise?
My positions as a candidate were exactly like my positions as a commissioner. That was fairly easy for me, as my platform was "keep government as small as feasible" and "transparency." When people asked me things like spending policies, that's all I ever promised, and I warned them not to count on anything different. I warned them that as a single commissioner out of 5 I would never be able to control votes, but I could always report honestly to them about what was happening. If people asked me about touchy subjects, I would tell them whether I thought the issues were likely to come up in a county position (i.e., I support vouchers but that's a school-board thing, not a county thing), and I would distinguish between my personal views and my duty to represent the voters (i.e., there might be a public works project that isn't my favorite sort, but what's important is not my personal opinion but public support).
It's not really that hard, and what made it easy for me was that I thought it was my duty to run, not to win. If people wouldn't vote for me knowing what my actual platform was, I shouldn't be elected and I didn't want to serve.
If I profoundly disagree with a Commissioners Court decision, I either conclude I should support it as a compromise, and explain why, or I vote against it. I voted for a tax rate hike after the hurricane, for instance, on the ground that property values had plummeted and it was more important to keep revenues at roughly the same level. People complained, I explained my reasoning, and that was it. Other times, I was the lone vote "no," and I explained why. I don't vote "yes" unless I'm willing to explain why, and why I think it's consistent with what I promised when I ran. Since I didn't over-promise, that's less difficult than it might be otherwise.
My neighbors now count on me for nearly all the information they get about county government action. They appear to be persuaded that they can trust me not to spin the facts. I report both convenient and inconvenient facts as straight as I can. Consequently, when I tell them something, they tend to trust me. They have almost zero trust in the county government's official pronouncements.
It's not nearly as necessary to dissemble as people suppose. It's a lot easier to tell the truth. Not only can I sleep at night, I don't have to keep any lies straight or explain myself by dissembling again.
Could I do this on a larger scale, in a statewide or federal race? I don't know, but if I couldn't, I wouldn't run dirty. I'd either not run, or I'd run and lose.
A political debate is basically a job interview.
And if the debater/interviewee lies during the interview, he's unfit for the job.
It's not nearly as necessary to dissemble as people suppose. It's a lot easier to tell the truth.
At least for an honest person. A liar doesn't care about that, only about his personal gain, and that greed makes honesty nearly impossible for him. An amoral person sees no difference between the lie and the truth; he sees only what's good for him in the short-term.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment