Harris’s politics might be familiar to us
Kamala Harris has been under more pressure in recent weeks than during the early days of her entry into the U.S. elections to clarify her positions on various issues more and more.
We have previously narrated that she intentionally avoids going into details in many areas, and her statements and speeches have supported the middle class, workers, labor unions, and Americans. With the exception of her precise entry into some economic and livelihood issues, which also became controversial, we haven’t heard much from her about the details of what she knows, believes, and intends to do.
She continued this approach cleverly in her interview and her vice-presidential candidate’s interview with CNN.
The specific issue that everyone might have been waiting to hear details about was the Gaza crisis, where she explicitly rejected the prohibition of arms sales to Israel. In this context, it is the Biden and Harris administration that has imposed some restrictions.
Despite all these generalities, Arab and Muslim Americans have a much more positive view of her compared to Biden. Her grand and historic speech at the Democratic convention in Chicago was the pinnacle of this political game. Harris wisely talked about everything and nothing, keeping everyone somewhat satisfied, from tech activists to the middle class and workers to business owners and companies.
What is the secret of this situation? Harris’s lack of attachment and indebtedness by itself was the main chance for Biden’s succession, and within just 48 hours, without pleading and requests from others, and solely relying on the party’s iron will to defeat Trump, the replacement face for Biden was introduced.
Even Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and the big figures who played a role in Biden’s departure cannot claim or demand from her because Harris herself, with all her might and until the last moment, opposed the idea of ousting her boss. The entire party is mobilized to defeat Trump, and in this situation, no one has the power to hold her accountable.
The progressive wing of the party, with the fireworks of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, turned so quickly from staunch support for Biden to Harris that it became historic, even if a few days were spent negotiating with Harris and a few of her economic promises were enough to reassure them.
That’s it. Biden supporters, Obama supporters, progressives, and even staunch critics of Biden’s policy towards Israel support Harris. Harris is reminiscent of Obama’s 2008 campaign, a young senator who suddenly, without serious and overt pressure from the party’s bigwigs, stood up against the main Democratic candidate, who was Hillary.
Harris even carries the same outsider and non-affiliated aspect with the ruling structure that Obama had. In the polls, a significant part of American society does not consider her involved in Biden’s policies.
But it is an undeniable fact that she must become as independent from Biden as possible, and the strange thing is that she has been given this space to demonstrate this independence in the remaining two months. Iranian politics also recently faced the phenomenon of Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, who suddenly emerged and, despite the main and foundational support of the reformist front, showed himself uniquely in all forms and political fronts, and did not show himself.
One of the most important strategies to free oneself from being labeled was reliance on upstream documents, and for the calm of the reformists, he also used the necessity of defeating Jalili and Qalibaf and the emergency situation of the country.
The difference between Iranian politics and American politics is as vast as the sky and the earth, but for comparison, this style of generality and detachment must emphasize at least two points.
Pezeshkian, after all, was a candidate approved by the Guardian Council and greatly benefited from the disqualification of other important candidates, and in fact, owes his presidency to that.
Another point is that the relatively acceptable and even not so acceptable lack of participation in the presidential elections showed how serious the lack of a serious discourse in Iranian politics, approved by the system, is in approaching the people.
This serious lack of participation occurred despite all of Pezeshkian’s efforts in debates to speak about the people’s demands.
The claim of insufficient opportunity for advertising is also not acceptable because the time frame between qualification approval and election day in this period was similar to previous periods.
The politics of the system’s acceptable figures have become devoid of identity, and with this lack of identity, their promises are not attractive. Their words not only do not satisfy everyone but do not satisfy anyone and do not even attract attention.