The Moral Inconsistency of Progressive Presidential Contender Kamala Harris

By Dan Cadman on February 1, 2019

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has already declared herself to be a presidential aspirant in the upcoming 2020 elections, among the dozens of other Democrats who are mulling over whether or not to run.

Many readers will know that Harris wants to be a progressive darling of the party, and has gone on record as being morally opposed to the border wall, comparing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the KKK, and expressing her dismay at the separation of alien parents from their children when they cross the border illegally.

She went so far as to declare that the Trump administration's actions constitute a "crime against humanity" — a declaration that grates in the ears when one thinks of real crimes against humanity, such as the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, the Rwandan genocide, the mass murder in Srebrenica, and even the wanton, murderous barbarity of ISIS in every area which it has held.

But having announced her candidacy, Harris now finds she is subject to the same kind of close scrutiny that she is so fond of according others, and her star is perhaps not shining quite so brightly.

Jim Geraghty at National Review Online, among others, has discussed a Twitter feed including a video of Harris discussing a policy she adopted as a chief prosecutor in California that jailed the parents of truant children. Yes, that's right, the parents. (Interestingly, when you click the hotlink inside Geraghty's article to the Twitter feed showing the video, it now says "Account suspended." One wonders why. Is Twitter helping Harris squelch the unexpected and unwanted focus?)

So, to recap: Harris endorsed a policy of locking up the parents of truant children — many of whom were undoubtedly difficult-to-manage rebellious teens that neither the parents nor the school district could manage — but somehow finds no fault in an alien parent who drags his or her infant or toddler, or eight or 10 year old, 1,700 miles across difficult terrain of jungle and then desert, exposes them to poisonous insects and reptiles, as well as predatory animals and humans, including smugglers who are as likely to physically or sexually assault as to help, just so that the parent has a "get out of jail free" card when they arrive at and illegally cross the U.S. southern border.

Does anyone else see a problem with moral consistency and a whiff of hypocrisy here?

Topics: Politics