to the LEFT

In perhaps the most anticipated announcement of the Democratic primary season, Kamala Harris is officially running for president. Many in the media have called the junior Senator from California a front-runner to be the Democratic nominee in 2020. Harris has been a relentless adversary to the Trump administration, grilling many of his nominees in the Senate. Over the past few years, she has become the darling of many on the left and large financial donors alike. While her candidacy excites some, parts of her past as a District Attorney in California worry others. Will Harris be able to convince Democratic voters to take her past with a grain of salt and make her the progressive standard bearer that can ultimately take down Donald Trump?

Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California to an Indian born mother and Jamaican father. She grew up attending a Baptist Church and a Hindu temple. After her parents divorced, Harris moved with her mother to Canada where her mother took a job doing medical research. Kamala Harris graduated from her Québec high school and then attended Howard University, majoring in Political Science and Economics. Harris then received her law degree from the University of California in 1989. Kamala went on to become the deputy District Attorney of Alameda County, the District Attorney of San Francisco, and then the Attorney General of California. In 2016, Harris successfully ran for Senate in California after Barbara Boxer announced her retirement.

Since announcing her intent on running for president, her time as a prosecutor in California is increasingly becoming an issue of contention for the left. In a time when people on the left are beginning to see the power, and abuses of power, that prosecutors and District Attorneys have, can a former prosecutor win the Democratic nomination?

To the dismay of progressive organizations like the ACLU of California and many Democratic politicians in her state, she opposed and urged voters to reject Proposition 66. California, like many other states, has a ‘three-strikes law’, but the state is one of the strictest – imposing an automatic life sentence, a third-strike, for any minor felony. Proposition 66 would have changed the law to make only violent felonies a trigger for three-strikes. In fact, in her book she states, “Getting smart on crime does not mean reducing sentences or punishments for crime.” While this statement is very broad and does not break down specific crimes and punishments, the very broad nature of it is alarming. We indeed, should be rethinking punishments for certain nonviolent crimes and reducing sentencing accordingly. In 2014, a federal judge in the state ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional, after which,  she appealed and fought this ruling. Harris also opposed a bill in 2015 requiring her office to investigate all shootings by police officers and did not support standards for body cameras for officers. In a time when the national attention has been on police brutality and the use of excessive force, this decision seems odd.

Harris also made truancy prosecution a priority, to the detriment of poorer Californians and communities of color. She even made this a key part of her campaign for Attorney General. Many progressive groups warned that this heavy-handed approach to truancy could lead to jail time for parents, which would in turn jeopardize employment. High fines compounded with a job loss would spell disaster for a family that is already struggling to survive. This policy effects lower income individuals and criminalizes parents that are already spread thin. This doesn’t reflect the many reasons that kids miss school, and spreading fear through families with the threat of huge fines and jail time doesn’t help children. The somewhat harsh course towards parents of truant children stands in contrast to her failing to prosecute Steve Mnuchin’s One West Bank. In response Harris said, “We went, and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made… We pursued it just like any other case. We go, and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.” An internal memo from the prosecutor’s office in California highlighted what they called ‘widespread misconduct’ and thousands of violations.

Perhaps the issue giving most on the left pause was the fact that during her tenure as San Francisco District Attorney she fought to uphold wrongful convictions obtained through very dubious methods. A lab technician in the San Francisco police department intentionally altered results and stole drugs from the lab. Internal memos showed that her office knew about this but failed to notify defense attorneys, causing a judge to condemn her offices actions. Hundreds of cases were dismissed. A recent piece in the New York Times by Lara Bazelon highlights numerous cases where Harris fought to uphold criminal cases tainted by false testimony, evidence tampering, and the suppression of evidence.

Analyzing Harris’ time as a prosecutor in California takes nuance and thoughtful consideration. While there are some things about her record that she should have to explain, there are some very good things to point out. She started a very successful program for first-time nonviolent offenders, giving them a chance to have their convictions dismissed if they complete rigorous vocational training. Harris also mandated bias training in the DA office and the police department. Women’s groups have praised her work in fixing the back log of rape test kits in the state. We must also remember that society places a double standard on women in positions of power – especially women of color. Oftentimes women in power are held to a higher standard, feeling a need to be tough – to show the world, and their male counterparts, that they deserve to have a seat at the table. This pull is even stronger for people of color in a world that is always ready to tear them down or paint them as something that they are not. Any discussion about Harris’ past must also include this fact as well.

Since this time, Harris has tried to move away from these decisions and brand herself as a progressive prosecutor – this is debatable in the least. Harris has said during her time as DA and Attorney General, she refused to voice support for many of the policies that progressive groups wanted her to support because in her capacity, it would not have been wise to appear to tip the scales. While there is validity in this, the District Attorney and Attorney General of a state has sway and power, and taking principled progressive stands would have a powerful impact, to show a desire to fundamentally change a corrupt system. That is how a progressive prosecutor uses his or her given power.

Seeing the momentum behind Medicare for All, she has cosponsored Bernie Sanders legislation for universal healthcare and gave as full-throated defense of the policy in her CNN Town Hall – to the dismay of some progressives, her advisers have since walked that statement back just a bit saying she is open to more moderate plans. Economically, she opposed the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and vows to replace them with a tax cut for the middle class. She also says she will not accept any corporate PAC money in her presidential campaign. While hopefully this is true, it is troubling that it was reported in the New York Times that her and several other potential candidates have had talks with executives on Wall Street gauging their support. If this is true than this will be a disqualifier for some parts of the left.

Decades after Shirley Chisholm, Harris paid homage to the first woman and the first African-American to run for president. She used similar lettering and a similar color scheme that Chisholm used. Her campaign slogan is, We the People, very different than the, I’m with Her, of the Hillary Clinton campaign. This shows that she learned from the mistakes of the Clinton campaign and is trying to center her campaign around people instead of herself. This at least, shows good messaging. In her campaign announcement video and CNN Town Hall, she appeared poised, studied, and smart. She will be a formidable opponent for a blundering Trump, with his intellectual capacity of a petulant child. What is a bit worrisome is that her answers to questions at times seem like standard focus grouped political messaging, just vague enough to appeal to progressives while not fully offending corporate actors. In a time when billionaires are literally running the government within the Trump administration and people are still struggling to meet the needs of their families, this just simply isn’t enough. We need someone to stand up and say the hard things, rock the boat and start the process of fundamentally changing a rigged system. One thing is true – Harris is a brilliant woman and a talented politician. What remains uncertain is, can Kamala Harris coalesce the different wings of the Democratic party to take on President Trump?

Dale Seufert-Navarro