In her first significant interview since becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris has defended her shift towards a more centrist stance on immigration, emphasizing her unchanged values while adapting her policies to what she perceives as the pragmatic needs of governance.
During a CNN interview with Dana Bash, Harris, accompanied by her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, tackled the criticism regarding her policy changes head-on. Previously, as a senator and during her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris had championed progressive immigration reforms, including the decriminalization of border crossings and the closure of detention centers. However, she now supports a tougher approach, aligning with a bipartisan border security bill that includes funding for border wall construction, which she promised to sign into law if elected.
“My values have not changed,” Harris insisted, drawing on her experience as California’s Attorney General where she prosecuted transnational criminal organizations. She explained her policy evolution by highlighting her travels across the country, which she said have convinced her of the necessity for consensus and practical solutions over ideological purity.
The interview also touched on her commitment to inclusivity in governance, with Harris stating her intention to appoint a Republican to her cabinet, underscoring her pledge to be a president “for all Americans.” “I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion,” she said, emphasizing the importance of having varied perspectives at decision-making tables.
On the international front, Harris reiterated the U.S. position on the Gaza conflict, calling for a ceasefire and the release of hostages, but she stopped short of endorsing an arms embargo on Israel, a move demanded by some progressive factions within her party.
The interview, while aimed at clarifying her positions, also served as a platform for Harris to navigate the delicate balance between her past progressive stances and the more centrist policies she now advocates, which she believes are necessary to address the complexities of immigration and border security effectively. This approach is seen as an attempt to appeal to a broader electorate, including those wary of the Democratic Party’s traditional stance on immigration, while still maintaining her core values.
Harris’s strategy appears to be one of pragmatic adaptation, aiming to reassure voters of her commitment to security and economic stability without abandoning the humanitarian aspects of immigration policy, a tightrope walk that could define her campaign’s success in the upcoming election.
