In less than four months, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., went from defending ICE’s existence to suggesting “we need to probably think about starting from scratch.” For Harris, it’s the latest in long line of leftward lurches since spring, conveniently timed the year before her party’s presidential primary kicks into gear.
“Yes, ICE has a purpose, ICE has a role, ICE should exist,” Harris insisted in March. By Sunday, amid controversy over the treatment of illegal immigrants and heightened talk of “abolishing” ICE among progressives, the freshman senator seemed much less convinced. “There’s no question that we’ve got to critically re-examine ICE and its role, and the way that it is being administered, and the work it is doing. And we need to probably think about starting from scratch,” she said on “Meet the Press.”
In 18 days from early to late April, Harris flip-flopped on corporate PAC donations, reversing course after progressives pounced on her for refusing to swear the money off. The former state attorney general went from firmly defending corporate donations to flimsily defending her change of heart by claiming she had simply “thought about it.”
When Nicholas Kristof jabbed at Harris in a viral New York Times deep dive into the plight of Kevin Cooper, a death row inmate believed by many to have been framed for murder, the senator called for DNA testing Kristof said she had refused to allow as California attorney general. “I feel awful about this,” she told the columnist, who described her as a “flawed political [leader]” in his story.
During the same “Meet the Press” interview in which she lurched leftward on ICE, Harris also admitted she was not ruling out a run for president in 2020. It might have been more accurate for her to say she was already campaigning.
Sure, people change their minds, and it’s good when politicians can admit that. But there does appear to be an emergent pre-primary trend on Harris’ part. With a potential presidential bid on the horizon, Harris seems to be aware she has progressive bona fides to shore up. The question, then, is whether the cost of those suspicious shifts will be greater than the benefit of claiming ideological purity.
