In a startling show of political inconsistency, Vice President Kamala Harris backed the ‘defund the police’ movement in the summer of 2020 during a wave of nationwide protests, only to later disavow the very same movement after hopping onboard the Biden presidential campaign. These comments were made on a radio show where Harris found it appropriate to criticize the amount of funding allocated to police departments. Pushing her narrative, she suggested that money would be better spent on social services such as education, housing, and healthcare.
Interestingly, Harris propagated this view in spite of its clear unpopularity among the citizens. She conveniently overlooked the fact that community safety is not solely dependent on the availability of social services, but also heavily relies upon a robust police force to counter criminal activities. Her comments echoed the sentiments of progressive activists energized by the unfortunate incident involving George Floyd.
In another conversation that raises serious questions about her judgment, Harris praised Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for cutting $150 million from the city’s police budget. What’s truly bewildering is that she once positioned herself as a tough-on-crime prosecutor, and potentially still leverages that reputation in a speculative face-off against Donald Trump, who himself is battling numerous legal issues.
However, traces of her previous ‘defund the police’ endorsement could turn out to be an obstacle in her path to promote this tough-on-crime image. The inconsistency was so glaring that Mitch Landrieu, national co-chair for the Biden-Harris campaign and former mayor of New Orleans, had to justify Harris’ remarks, stating she actually meant to support a tough but smart approach to crime.
In the months following her initial support for defunding the police, the movement mysteriously disappeared from Harris’ talking points. The Biden campaign scrambled to manage the fallout, aspiring to clarify her position as supportive of police funding.
Conveniently for Harris, she put forth the argument that scrutiny of police budgets was vital to the ‘defund’ movement’s ideology, while using it as an opportunity to propagate the demilitarization of police departments. Critics might observe this as a calculated shift that helped her project a necessary image change.
Critics argue that Harris’ change in heart appears insincere, representing a decision derived from political convenience rather than deep-seated conviction. And yet, Harris continued to frame defunding as a route to reimagining new safety mechanisms for cities, citing that one third of their budgets were often dedicated to policing.
Harris seems to suggest that safety could be achieved through underfunded and potentially understaffed police departments. She optimistically voiced that upper middle class suburban neighborhoods didn’t need patrol cars, and safety could instead be ensured through amenities such as well-funded schools, thriving small businesses, and access to health services.
However, it is important to question this naive perspective in light of real-world data and public sentiment. Polling suggests that Harris’ stance on reducing police budget does not resonate with the larger public. A mere 25% of adults voiced support for such cuts in 2020 and by 2021, this number had fallen to 15%, with a near majority advocating for increased police spending.
Seeming to trail the public pulse, Biden and Harris’ campaign made attempts to clarify Harris’s previous position, indicating that she was now against defunding police, even favoring increased funding. A radical shift that some might have found contradictory compared to her previous statements, it showcased her willingness to change her stance for political convenience.
Sabrina Singh, Harris’ then-press secretary, went on record in October 2020 denying that Biden and Harris supported defunding the police. She further asserted that throughout her career, Harris actually supported increased funding for police departments and promoted community policing.
Ironically, while both Harris and Biden went to great lengths to distance themselves from the ‘defund the police’ movement, polling from POLITICO-Morning Consult highlighted that almost 60% of registered voters supported major reforms or a complete overhaul of police departments in 2020. Yet, only 29% backed defunding the police.
Biden, seemingly immune to the influence of the protests that consumed the summer of 2020, remained insistent that he was against the ‘defund’ movement and instead supported increased spending for police and social services.
Harris, despite these incongruities, has often highlighted her prosecutor’s record— an aspect that came under heavy scrutiny during her unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaign. Known for her ‘smart on crime’ approach, she worked on initiatives like truancy prosecution and even defended the death penalty.
The very same Harris, who created the ‘Back on Track’ program for first-time drug offenders, also opposed a statewide ballot measure to legalize marijuana and called for higher bails on certain gun charges. Critics perceive this as a possible attempt to secure an image that is politically advantageous, rather than focusing on effective and consistent public service.
These shifts in stance and the resulting confusion make it difficult to form a clear understanding of Harris’ intent or direction, making it crucial to critically examine her statements and actions in the political sphere in the near future. It is clear that her turnarounds on significant matters like police defunding speak volumes on her readiness to modify her principles based on political exigencies rather than stand by her convictions.
Kamala Harris: A Flip-flop Champion on Police Funding appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
