A Harris Presidency Would Put Us All in Danger | Opinion

Not long ago, the idea of ​​Kamala Harris becoming the next president of the United States seemed ridiculous, even fanciful. But things have changed. Not only is she competing with Donald Trump and surpassing him in some polls, but the vice president also has the support of Obama.

On Friday, July 26, Barack and Michelle Obama endorsed the vice president. “At a time when the stakes have never been higher, she gives us all reason to hope,” they said.

On the contrary, Harris gives us all reason to worry.

First, her public image as a champion of racial equality contrasts sharply with her record, particularly on criminal justice issues. Her resistance to early release for nonviolent offenders—despite her alleged commitment to reform—exposes a disconnect between her rhetoric and her actions.

Not only is she disingenuous, Harris doesn’t seem to take her role as vice president seriously. In 2020, she was tasked with running the southern border. It’s undoubtedly a difficult and often thankless role, especially given the scale of what many consider the nation’s biggest crisis. But she’s also seemingly shown virtually no real interest in addressing the issue. As Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens recently noted , Harris hasn’t reached out to him since his appointment in July 2023. Think about that for a moment. While countless migrants were entering the country illegally, Harris couldn’t even be bothered to call Owens.

America First Legal, a nonprofit founded by Stephen Miller, who served as a senior adviser to Donald Trump during his presidency, is currently conducting seven investigations into her tenure as California attorney general. During her tenure as attorney general, Harris actively hindered enforcement of federal immigration policy. She defended San Francisco’s sanctuary cities ordinance and opposed California’s participation in the Secure Communities program, which made it easier for ICE to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records from local communities. In addition, America First Legal is investigating whether Harris intentionally ignored or covered up misconduct by prosecutors under her watch, as well as potential misconduct by close political associates.

But it is not everything.

A Harris presidency would not only hurt America; it would hurt the entire world.

That’s because her history reveals a penchant for divisive politics and an unwavering commitment to military escalation. Behind the humiliating memes and embarrassing TikToks, Harris is an absolute war hawk.

The 59-year-old’s political career has revealed a consistent pattern of aggressive militarism and an ongoing desire to expand U.S. military influence around the world. The Washington Post As previously reported, Harris insiders describe her as a “Truman Democrat,” recognizing her willingness to use military force in the service of promoting American values ​​and interests.

Truman played a key role in shaping the modern national security apparatus. Under his administration, the Central Intelligence Agency was created and the War Department was transformed into the Defense Department. This led to the establishment of a police state and the organization of numerous coups around the world. Since then, the situation has been steadily deteriorating. In today’s geopolitical landscape, this approach carries significant risks, especially with respect to major powers such as China and Russia. Escalating interventionist policies could exacerbate global tensions, bringing the world closer to World War III.

In these difficult times, skillful diplomacy is essential — another area in which Harris is clearly lacking.

That was on full display when she visited the Philippines in 2022. For three days, the vice president extolled the virtues of U.S. defense commitments to the Philippines while issuing thinly veiled threats against China. Her rhetoric not only bolstered America’s military presence in the region but also underscored her willingness to escalate tensions with a rival superpower if necessary.

Moreover, Harris has promised to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” In other words, she plans to continue pouring exorbitant amounts of money into a fundamentally corrupt country that has no chance of winning a war with Russia. This irresponsible approach increases the risk of nuclear conflict, bringing the world closer to an unprecedented catastrophe. Her policies and public statements reveal a blind commitment to increasing global risk. Harris is problematic, not pragmatic.

In stark contrast, Trump and his vice presidential nominee, J.D. Vance, offer the possibility of a very different approach. They advocate for policies focused on reducing U.S. military involvement around the world and de-escalating ongoing conflicts. Don’t let Harris’ smile and social media persona fool you. She’s a hawk with an insatiable appetite for conflict. Voting for her in November would essentially mean supporting more carnage and suffering. The race between Trump and Harris is not simply a gender contest, but a crucial decision between dropping bombs and defusing them.

John Mac Ghlionn writes about social issues, technology and the impact of media manipulation. Follow him on @ghlionn.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author.