Three strikes for Kamala

Let’s be clear: Kamala Harris’ intelligence, character, her policy goals (broad support for the poor, middle class, and needy seniors; a fairer tax structure; continued support for NATO and democratic governments everywhere; improvement and continued support for the Affordable Cares Act; and broad support for necessary environmental and regulatory oversight) did not undermine her presidential bid.

Instead, despite the fact that the current U.S. economy is the strongest of any industrialized nation in the world, the unemployment rate is low, and overall inflation has fallen sharply, three factors, in my opinion, stemming from the unspoken underbelly of national prejudice, have sunk Ms. Harris’ candidacy.

She is a woman (a woman cannot be president). She’s Black. And she supports the rights of all people, including LGBTQ people.

Pursuing political goals almost directly opposed to Ms. Harris’s, many wealthy individuals, major corporations and right-wing strategists have subtly (and not so subtly) appealed to the nation’s prejudices. They did this without taking into account objective facts and scientific truths. It worked. We elected an authoritarian president and gave him potentially effective legislative support for at least the next two years.

It remains to be seen whether our democracy (however flawed it may seem to some), our economy, our freedoms, our espoused values ​​will survive this dramatic transition to a more authoritarian government unencumbered by verifiable facts and scientific evidence. But a quick glance at similar governments around the world does not bode well.

Orlando Delogu
Portland

Copy the link to the story