The Kamala Harris Security Obsession: A Critical Look

 Related Article

Gary Smith, PhD 

Kamala Harris Security Criminal Justice Reform National Security Policies Law and Order vs. Justice Criminalization of Poverty Police Misconduct Immigration Policies Surveillance and Privacy Civil Rights and Freedoms Community Safety Initiatives Three Strikes Law Impact California Attorney General Digital Age Security Environmental Justice Policies Post-9/11 Political Climate Kamala Harris

Security is the pillar that has most supported Kamala Harris' political career. It's not just a matter of rhetoric but a philosophical stance that shapes policies and public discourse. Since her swearing-in, Vice-President Harris has expressed views on security from national defense to criminal justice reform. Her obsession with security often drowns out discussions around freedom and liberty along with the broad implications of her policies.

A Consistent Theme

From her time as District Attorney in San Francisco to the Vice Presidency, Harris frequently employs the term "security." This term is nearly habitual in her speeches, interviews, and policy memos. She linked national security to cybersecurity and foreign relations in the Senate, claiming that a secure nation equals prosperity. Her emphasis on community safety often translates into an endorsement of law enforcement initiatives aimed at creating a veneer of safety (often referred to as the Nanny State).

Yet, her obsession with ‘security’ raises critical questions. The pervasive notion of security may suggest a motive of control—either through government means or at the expense of individual freedoms. Harris's rhetoric frequently conveys a desire to "lock it down," whether in discussions on strict immigration policies or the promotion of high-tech surveillance systems. Her delivery during speeches smacks of a phobic woman trying to quell her inner tremors with a police state.

Law and Order: Justice is Secondary

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Harris's record is her prioritization of law and order over justice and rehabilitation. Her hardline approach stems from her tenure as San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011, where she supported the 'three strikes' law. This law mandated a life sentence for individuals convicted of a third felony, regardless of the nature of the third offense. The policy disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and incarceration.

Harris's record displays a troubling callousness towards those entangled in the criminal justice system. As Attorney General of California, she defended policies imposing draconian sentences on minor drug offenses, blocking opportunities for rehabilitation and inflicting lifelong repercussions on many. In 2010, she opposed legislation aimed at reducing mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses, exemplifying a preference for punishment over compassion. Harris created a California revolving door, shuffling bodies from prison to homelessness to prison.

Additionally, her office aggressively collected unpaid fines and fees, leading to the criminalization of poverty. Individuals unable to pay often faced arrest, further entrenching cycles of disadvantage. Her focus on law enforcement and punishment signals a doubling down on policies that target the most vulnerable, reinforcing a system where the pursuit of security eclipses the pursuit of justice.

Critical Critiques of Harris's Record:

1.    Overlooking Police Misconduct: Critics argue that Harris did not take concrete steps to address police misconduct, often failing to prosecute officers for excessive use of force, which exacerbated public mistrust in law enforcement.

2.    Weakness Against Corruption: As Attorney General, her reluctance to pursue corruption cases in major corporations raised concerns about her commitment to holding powerful interests accountable.

3.    Lack of Emphasis on Environmental Justice: Critics point out her insufficient focus on environmental justice, suggesting her policies prioritized development over the health and safety of vulnerable communities.

4.    Mixed Record on Immigration: Despite criticizing specific immigration policies, her support for repressive initiatives has drawn criticism from immigrant rights advocates questioning her commitment to humane immigration reform.

The Implications of a Security Mindset

While Harris has repeated the term "security" extensively, her discussions on freedom and liberty are noticeably sparse. This oversight is significant, especially in civil rights and social justice debates. By sidelining these terms, she communicates a troubling message: security precedes the fundamental freedoms a democratic regime guarantees.

In discussions about police reform, Harris frequently frames the issue through the lens of public safety. While she may acknowledge the need for reform, her emphasis on order often overshadows the necessity of protecting individual rights. In societies that value security and freedom, her framing risks promoting the perception that liberty is secondary, a concern for civil rights advocates.

Security Versus Surveillance

Harris's approach to security also intertwines with issues of surveillance and privacy. In the digital age, security measures can devolve into invasive practices threatening personal freedoms. While she has supported initiatives to combat cyber threats and enhance national security, these often come at a significant cost to individual privacy.

Her advocacy for increased surveillance technologies, framed as a necessary evil for public safety, raises ethical questions. The more security is invoked, the greater the risk of normalizing invasive practices that violate civil liberties. Harris's security-centric discourse reflects a broader trend in American politics that frequently subordinates fundamental rights to safety.

The Criminalization of Poverty

Harris's policies have contributed to the criminalization of poverty. As District Attorney, she implemented programs targeting 'quality of life' crimes—like loitering and fare evasion. These are minor offenses often associated with poverty, and prosecuting them disproportionately affects low-income individuals, further entrenching systemic inequities.

Her career has consistently favored punishment over rehabilitation, indicating little compassion, empathy or sign of a shift in this pattern. As Vice President, it seems likely that she will continue to prioritize security and law enforcement at the expense of freedom and liberty, potentially doubling down on policies that criminalize poverty rather than addressing its root causes.

A Framework to Understand

To fully grasp Harris's obsession with security, one must consider the broader context of American politics. The post-9/11 mindset, a term used to describe the shift in political discourse and policy priorities following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has dominated political discourse. In this context, security often trumps civil liberties, and Harris's approach to security can be seen as a reflection of this prevailing political narrative.

Harris fits this mold, establishing security as a cornerstone of her political identity. While this may resonate with soccer Moms seeking an illusion of safety, it risks alienating those prioritizing their freedom and civil rights. In navigating this tension, Harris stands at a crossroads, needing to balance her desire for security with the protection of individual liberties.

Kamala Harris's stance on security reflects a complicated love affair. Her frequent invocation of the term points to an obsession with control that frequently undermines freedom and civil rights considerations. While security is undoubtedly important, it can become a skeleton key for policies that encroach upon individual liberties.

The balance between security and freedom remains at stake. In a democratic society, liberty should be valued equally with the pursuit of safety. The question persists: will Harris continue prioritizing security over justice and empathy, or not? 

Harris is banking on carrying the Black voters (like Obama). It is ironic how many Black people she gave Three Strikes Life Sentences to for non-violent crimes. During her tenure, a man was sentenced to life in prison for stealing a pizza (his “Third Strike”).

 Related Article

Sources:

• "Kamala Harris: The New American Political Icon" by Lisa Lerer, The New York Times

• "The Rise of Kamala Harris", Politico

• "Three Strikes: The Impact of the California Law," American Civil Liberties Union

•        "The Case Against Kamala Harris" by Emily Bazelon, The New York Times Magazine

•        "A New Era of Policing: Kamala Harris and the Pursuit of Justice" Brookings Institution

•        "Kamala Harris's Views on Criminal Justice" Vox

•        "The Costs of Harris's Criminal Justice Policies" The Atlantic