For Democrats, Kamala Harris doesn’t need policies. Preferences are enough

FOR DEMOCRATS, KAMALA HARRIS DOESN'T NEED POLICIES. PREFERENCES ARE ENOUGH. Republicans are frustrated that Vice President Kamala Harris has not outlined specific policy proposals in her last-minute run for president. She has apparently abandoned some of the views she held during her failed campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2019, but no one knows for sure because information about Harris's positions has come out in dribs and drabs through spokespeople or unattributed news stories.

But look at the ecstatic crowds of delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where Harris will accept her party's nomination tonight. Do you think they want detailed policy proposals? Not at all. And do you think they consider themselves in the dark about what Harris would do as president? Again, not at all.

They're happy because even though they don't have the wonkish details, in broad terms, they are certain of what Harris will do as president of the United States. She is a progressive Democrat, and they are confident she will act on the policy preferences of progressive Democrats. The cheering crowd in Chicago assumes she will hew to the basic progressive orthodoxy of taxing the rich, increasing transfer payments, expanding national healthcare, crippling the fossil fuel energy industry, and prioritizing racial and gender "equity."

This is a bit of mass mind-reading, but the delegates and other Democratic insiders in Chicago probably feel confident that Harris will not surprise them. So no, they do not demand that she produce a 1,000-page policy manual. They know she will do what they want.

In that sense, Harris is running the perfect race for the bizarre political moment that Democratic Party insiders have created. Just compare her candidacy to previous years:

Barack Obama announced his campaign for president on Feb. 20, 2007. His speech accepting the Democratic nomination came on Aug. 28, 2008. In between were 19 long months of campaigning, speeches, interviews, debates, and policy proposals.

Donald Trump announced his campaign for president on June 16, 2015, and accepted the Republican nomination on July 21, 2016. In between were 13 long months of campaigning, speeches, interviews, debates, and policy proposals.

Joe Biden announced his campaign for president on April 25, 2019, and accepted the Democratic nomination on Aug. 21, 2020. In between were 16 long months of campaigning, speeches, interviews, debates, and policy proposals.

Kamala Harris was anointed the Democratic candidate upon Biden's withdrawal from the reelection race on July 21, 2024. She will accept the Democratic nomination on Aug. 22, 2024. In between have been 32 days of a little campaigning, a few speeches, no interviews, no debates, and no policy proposals.

No presidential hopeful in the modern era has won his or her party's nomination while offering so little of what is normally expected of a major party candidate. The Biden ouster, engineered by powerful Democratic insiders late in the presidential race, has resulted in a candidacy that is alarmingly short on information about what the candidate intends to do if elected.

Harris defenders point out that a party convention, dominated by rah-rah cheerleading, is not a place for detailed discussions of policy. That's true. But in the past, there had been more than a year of policy discussions prior to the convention, part of a long, grueling vetting process that resulted in one candidate winning the nomination. Harris went through none of that.

Democrats also point out that Trump has not produced a 1,000-page policy manual, either. However, Trump, unlike Harris, has been president before. Voters remember his accomplishments and the positions he took, and many remember their lives, especially their economic condition, as better when Trump was president than after Harris entered the White House.

In the absence of specific information about what Harris would do as president — and again, that's a situation Democrats are happy about — confusion has taken over the policy discussion. The best example is Harris's embrace of price controls. Did she really do that? Did she not? What does she think? We don't know.

We do know that the Harris campaign promised the "first-ever federal ban on corporate price-gouging." Like other progressive Democrats, she has blamed the inflation of the Biden-Harris era on "corporate greed," as opposed to Biden-Harris policies. So a federal ban on "price-gouging" promised some sort of federal control of pricing.

But wait! Look at this new report from the New York Times: "It is still impossible to say, from publicly available details, what exactly the ban would do. Republicans have denounced the proposal as 'communist,' warning that it would lead to the federal government setting prices in the marketplace. Former President Donald J. Trump has mocked the plan on social media as 'SOVIET Style Price Controls.' Progressives have cheered the announcement as a crucial check on corporate greed, saying it could immediately benefit shoppers who have been stunned by a 20 percent rise in food costs since President Biden took office. But people familiar with Ms. Harris's thinking on the ban now say it might not resemble either of those characterizations. The ban, they also suggest, might actually not do anything to bring down grocery prices right now. ... Ms. Harris's campaign has created the space for multiple interpretations, by declining to specify how that ban would work, when it would apply, or what behaviors it would prohibit."

So what does that mean? Who knows? But watch the convention tonight and ask yourself if it matters at all to the people who just gave Harris the Democratic nomination. The question of the next 70-plus days will be whether it matters to voters who aren't true progressive believers.