As the Democratic National Committee (DNC) anointed Kamala Harris as their standard-bearer for the 2024 presidential election, a striking pivot occurred. Up until that point, the Democrats had vigorously pushed their devotion to “saving democracy.” The party positioned itself as the protector of the democratic process, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. But once the DNC officially placed its bets on Harris, the rhetoric shifted. The Democrats’ national convention became a celebration of “joy,” a sentiment that was only reinforced by their decision to ignore the hefty costs of the policies they were joyously promising.
Harris’ campaign strategy has since raised serious questions about its credibility, transparency, and commitment to the democratic principles the Democrats had previously championed. The initial posting of Biden’s policy positions as Harris’ own, followed by their subsequent deletion, only fueled suspicions. Harris, who has served as Vice President for almost four years, suddenly presented herself as a “change” candidate, distancing herself from the Biden administration’s policies she once supported. What followed was a campaign marked by vagueness, with little clarity on her new policy positions. Proxies, often speaking anonymously, offered contradictory claims that lacked credibility, undermining the very democratic process the party had claimed to protect.
The result is a campaign that has left voters in the dark about Harris’ true policy positions, raising concerns about the effectiveness of democracy when voters are uninformed. Informed voters are crucial to any functioning democracy, but Harris’ campaign tactics have made it nearly impossible for voters to make informed choices. Without specific policies to evaluate, voters are left to speculate on Harris’ platform, a dangerous proposition for any democracy.
Dangers of Vagueness in Political Campaigns
The lack of clarity surrounding Harris’ campaign is not just a failure of communication; it’s a fundamental flaw in the democratic process. Voters rely on specific, detailed information to make informed decisions about the future of their country. Without such information, voting becomes a superficial exercise, driven by vague promises and emotional appeals rather than concrete policy analysis. When politicians fail to provide detailed proposals, they rob the electorate of the ability to evaluate the real-world impact of those policies. This undermines the very foundation of democracy, where informed citizens are supposed to play a critical role in shaping the nation’s future.
A campaign devoid of specifics leaves voters unable to assess how well a proposal would fare in practice. Politicians may wax poetic about their goals, but without concrete details, voters cannot evaluate whether those goals are achievable or how much they will cost. In Harris’ case, her policy section on the campaign website was revealed to be a “copy-and-paste job from the Biden 2024 website,” according to Matt Vespa, further eroding the credibility of her candidacy.
This kind of political behavior contrasts starkly with the private sector, where consumers have access to detailed information before making purchases. In the marketplace, sales pitches must adhere to truth-in-advertising laws, which require that claims be more than misleading half-truths. Politicians, however, face no such constraints. They are free to make vague promises without providing the necessary details for voters to assess whether those promises are realistic or beneficial. This discrepancy between the private market and political competition helps explain why political campaigns are often so much vaguer.
The Real-World Consequences of Vague Promises
The consequences of such vagueness are profound. If a politician’s campaign rhetoric is unmatched by specific policy details, there is little reason to believe those proposals will be effective, much less efficient. The devil is always in the details, and without them, voters cannot gauge whether a policy will achieve its stated goals. Politicians often claim that their proposals will create positive outcomes without acknowledging the potential costs or unintended consequences. This is a recipe for disaster, as ill-conceived policies can lead to wasteful spending, inefficiency, and unintended harm to the very people they are intended to help.
For example, the luxury yacht tax enacted in 1991, which Democrats promoted as a way to make the wealthy “pay their fair share,” turned out to be an economic disaster. Instead of generating revenue, it destroyed 25,000 jobs in the boating industry and wiped out millions in tax revenue. This is a prime example of how a poorly designed policy, based on vague promises, can have disastrous real-world consequences.
Similarly, President Biden’s infrastructure plan promised to build 500,000 new electric vehicle (EV) charging stations by 2030. However, in the first two years of his administration, only seven stations were constructed, a far cry from the ambitious goal. Such failures are often the result of politicians overpromising and underdelivering, a consequence of vague campaign rhetoric that fails to align with the realities of implementation.
Vagueness as a Political Strategy
While the lack of specifics in Harris’ campaign may seem like a failure, it could also be a deliberate political strategy. Vagueness allows politicians to deflect criticism by claiming that their proposals have been misunderstood or misrepresented. When confronted with criticism, they can easily say, “That was not in my proposal,” or “I have no plans to do that.” This rhetorical sleight of hand allows them to avoid accountability and maintain flexibility in their policy positions.
Vagueness also forces opponents to go first with specific proposals, putting them in the hot seat while allowing the vague candidate to criticize without offering alternative solutions. In this way, vagueness can be a strategic advantage, enabling a candidate to avoid scrutiny while positioning themselves as open to evolving ideas.
However, this strategy comes at a significant cost to the democratic process. A campaign built on vagueness and ambiguity leaves voters guessing about what a candidate will actually do once in office. It undermines the trust that is essential for any functioning democracy. If voters cannot trust that a candidate will deliver on their promises, or if they are unsure of what those promises even are, the democratic process is severely compromised.
Specificity in Policy Proposals
For democracy to function effectively, voters need detailed information about the policies being proposed. This allows them to weigh the costs and benefits of each proposal and make informed decisions. When politicians fail to provide this information, they are not only misleading voters but also undermining the democratic process.
Harris’ campaign, with its lack of detailed policy proposals, is a prime example of this problem. By failing to provide specifics, Harris is asking voters to trust her without giving them the information they need to make an informed decision. This is particularly concerning given the high stakes of the 2024 election, where trillions of dollars in public spending are at stake.
The private sector provides a useful contrast. In the marketplace, consumers are typically well-informed before making purchases. They can read reviews, compare prices, and evaluate the features of different products. This allows them to make informed choices that reflect their preferences and needs. If politicians were held to the same standard, they would be required to provide detailed, transparent information about their policies before asking for voters’ support.
Unfortunately, politicians often avoid providing such information because it would reveal the shortcomings of their proposals. If the details were favorable, there would be no reason to withhold them. The fact that they are often kept hidden suggests that the true costs and consequences of these policies are far worse than the campaign rhetoric implies.
As Kamala Harris continues her campaign for the presidency, voters must demand greater transparency and accountability. The Democratic Party’s shift from emphasizing “saving democracy” to promoting vague promises of joy and change is deeply troubling. Democracy cannot thrive when voters are kept in the dark about the policies being proposed.
The 2024 election is a pivotal moment for the future of the United States, and voters deserve detailed information about the candidates’ platforms. Without it, they cannot make informed choices about the direction of the country. Harris’ campaign, with its reliance on vagueness and ambiguity, poses a serious threat to the democratic process.
It is time for politicians to be held to the same standards as private sector salespeople. Voters should demand clear, detailed policy proposals that can be scrutinized and evaluated. Only then can democracy function as it should, with informed citizens playing a meaningful role in shaping the nation’s future.
