gedavis.com
campaign 2024
gedavis.com |
campaign 2024 |
||
| a lesson in progressive pragmatism Harris scripted by others gary e. davis |
September 3, 2024 |
|---|
Thursday, Aug. 29, Kamala Harris did a 27 minute interview with CNN, now forgotten, though highly anticipated by news media and pundits before it hap- pened. It got extensive attention by the media soon after, then the 24/7 flow of media attention moved on. This is the way of political theater, indeed the way of most everything in medial life. But dwelling with an early minute of the event is worthwhile; so, bear with me. Harris was ending a 2-day bus tour through Georgia. CNN’s Dana Bash wasn’t at all interested in that. Early on, Bash was interested in Harris’s position on fracking in Pennsylvania (which could have no inteest to Georgians). That coincidently served Harris’s interest in soon going back to Pennsylvania, but concern about that was not any part of Harris’s agenda (neither during the DNC in Chicago nor in recent media relations) which pertains to a national audience. Harris was not in control of the interview agenda, of course, something she does not like (“[S]he [doesn’t] like doing this.”). Inasmuch as western Pennsylvanians might be still concerned about that, Harris would face that with the voters there who are concerned. That’s the practical place for the issue, relative to actual concerns in “retail” campaigning there, not a café in Savannah, Georgia. Harris didn’t need Bash to ignore Harris’s interest in addressing the concerns of Southern voters. Especially, Harris wouldn’t want Bash to address that at the top of the interview, thereby implicitly signaling to Georgians that the interview wouldn’t be relevant to them (in their intensely “battleground” state). But Harris plays along politely. Bash: “When you were in Congress, you supported the Green New Deal. And in 2019 you said, quote, ‘There is no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.’ Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania…. Do you still want to ban fracking?” Harris: “No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking. As Vice President, I did not ban fracking. As President, I will not ban fracking.” me: Made clear, curtly. Now, let’s move on, I thought. But no. Bash had her notes to follow. She wasn’t in a conversation with Harris. As if Harris hadn’t been clear,... Bash: “In 2019, I believe in a town hall you said — you were asked, ‘Would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office?’ and you said, ‘There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. So yes.’ So it changed in — in that campaign?” me: Now look: Harris has just said that her position had changed in 2020, during her vice presidency, and would stay changed going forward. But Bash is going back to 2019 because that’s in her notes. I felt that, if I were Harris, I would have a little trouble hiding impatience. But Harris kept here cool, curt but not impatient: Harris: “In 2020 I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I have not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word.” me: That response is not only politely direct, but asserts a key theme of her campaign: the trustworthiness of one’s positions—which can’t be said of Trump. But her response also expresses that Bash should be focused on going forward (and being responsive to Harris’s reply). Harris is “politic,” i.e., aptly interaction oriented, patiently playing into Bash’s script. Bash: “What made you change that position at the time?” me: That’s a complex topic which can’t be fairly addressed in a short interview, especially since it’s not directly related to anything Harris found important in recent weeks. Harris: “Well, let’s be clear. My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far….” me: In other words, the trajectory of the Biden/Harris years of concern with climate change would be the explanation, which the current interview cannot fairly address. Harris: “…The Inflation Reduction Act, what we have done to invest, by my calculation over probably a trillion dollars over the next ten years investing in a clean energy economy. What we’ve already done creating over 300,000 new clean energy jobs. That tells me from my experience as vice president we can do it without banning fracking. In fact, Dana — Dana, excuse me [as Bash tries to interrupt] — I cast the tie-breaking vote that actually increased leases for fracking as vice president. So I’m very clear about where I stand.” me: In other words, developing alternatives to prohibition is better policy than simply prohibiting. This is a keynote of progressive pragmatism, related to the theme of behevioral economics that a “nudge” (promoting the better option) does more for good outcomes than primarily prohibiting. In the mode of ethical theory, the virtue of an appeal is better than deontic compelling. In the mode of public policy, the appeal of a good solution annuls the appeal of a bad solution, in the long run. Developing, then promoting, economic alternatives displaces the traditional economic harms which compel prohibition. Bash: “And was there some policy or scientific data that you saw that you said, ‘Oh, okay. I get it now’?” me: Give viewers a break. This is a short interview. But Harris—entitled to get impatient—keeps her cool: Harris: “What I have seen is that we can — we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.” me: In short, exactly what I indicated above. But some pundits weren’t satisfied that evening. Bret Stephens, NYTimes, wrote that “She was vague to the point of vacuous.” No, Stephens is clueless: “She struggled to give straight answers to her shifting positions on fracking…other than to say, ‘My values have not changed’.” Stephens misses a difference which E. J. Dionne smartly appreciated a few days later: the difference between policy and politics, i.e., the difference between the pragmatics of an actual administration and the pragmatics of campaigning. I responded to Stephens’ opinion there, in part, that his… … criticism is invalid because Harris’s audience is voters who are ambivalent or likely to not vote, not voters looking for astute reasoning. They don’t want to be confronted with complexities. They want to feel motivated to vote.Relatedly, I commented at a well-done Washington Post response to the interview: “Of course Harris’s emphasis on prevailing values wouldn’t ‘provide too much clarity on why she has changed the specifics’ because pragmatic leadership is complex, beyond the scope of a short interview…. Any extended idea faces blow-back for being ‘evasive’.” The next day, the Post noted that “Bash kept implying Harris is a flip-flopper — but Harris seems happy to flip to the center/right.” More accurately, Harris is pragmatic, which is also a hallmark of political wisdom—and Biden’s presidency. A writer for The Atlantic called the interview “a good-enough prime time debut,” noting that “Harris…is sometimes prone to wordy circumlocutions,” which is silly. That’s the kind of quip that addressing complex concerns commonly receive. Business persons want short memos. Journalists want extractable quotes (or “sound bites”) which spin well without context. next—> campaigning effectively |
| Be fair. © 2024, gary e. davis |