Vice-President Kamala Harris works "for the people". Her visioin for American includes hope and opportunity for all!
The Boston Globe editorial board endorses Kamala Harrisđ¤:
For much of the past decade, former president Donald Trump has put his toxic stamp on American politics like few politicians in American history.
He has routinely denigrated the rule of law, undermined faith in our electoral system, and espoused debunked conspiracies. He has befriended autocrats overseas while embracing antidemocratic ideas and personalities at home. He has been found guilty in a criminal court of falsifying business records and awaits trial in two other criminal cases, including for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020, presidential election.
Along the way, he has become the dominant force in American politics, successfully remaking the Republican Party in his own image and forcing Democrats to define themselves largely as a party of resistance to him. He has achieved this distinction in part by demanding that the country confront some important problems, most notably the decline of American manufacturing, the struggles of working-class men, and an overdependence on Chinese goods. But on balance, his influence on our politics and governance has been overwhelmingly malign, marked by self-dealing, disregard for the law, incompetence, and chronic dishonesty.
It is time, then, to bring to a close the Trump era in American political life. It wonât be easy or swift because his influence is deep. But the detoxification must begin with his defeat on Nov. 5. For that reason, and because of the strong vision she offers for the country, this editorial board enthusiastically endorses Vice President Kamala Harris for president.
Harris offers a different path for the nation, one firmly rooted in the best American traditions. Her way welcomes the hard work and innovation of striving immigrants even as it seeks to lift the poor, working, and middle classes. She urges us to uphold the highest ideals of democracy, freedom, and justice. For her, defending democracy overseas is the surest way to bolster prosperity and security back home.
Where Trump relentlessly demonizes migrants, women, the weak, and the vulnerable â indeed, anyone or any institution that has the gumption to stand in his way â Harris promotes the nationâs better angels. His message is one of fear and loathing. Hers is one of unity, hope, and aspiration. Is the choice between those not clearâ
Vice-President Kamala Harris grew up in middle-class communities in the Bay Area, the child of a Jamaican father and Indian mother, both immigrants â a far cry from Trumpâs upbringing amid upper-class privilege.
After law school, she became a prosecutor in San Francisco where her pursuit of marijuana dealers angered progressives even as her support for diversion programs to reduce incarceration rates riled conservatives. She twice won election for California attorney general and served four years in the US Senate before Joe Biden selected her to be his running mate in 2020.
Though Harris has long identified herself as both Black and South Asian American, Trump has fallaciously asserted that she only âhappened to turn Blackâ in recent years. In fact she spent much of her youth in a Black community surrounded by Black friends, graduated from historically Black Howard University, and has proudly identified with both her parentsâ cultures.
On economic policy, Trump has benefited from the widespread belief that he would do a better job of managing the economy and that a second term would rekindle what his supporters consider the halcyon days of 2019, when interest rates and inflation were low and there were fewer major global conflicts. Yet many voters seem unaware that at the core of his economic platform is a proposal most economists consider wildly dangerous: imposing tariffs as high as 20 percent on all imported goods, and more for those from China.
Though Trump asserts his plan would raise revenue, reduce the yawning trade gap, and strengthen American industry, economists almost across the board say it is also likely to trigger a global trade war, cause American job losses, and hurt consumers by raising prices on most goods.
At the same time, the economy today is humming along about as well as it ever did under Trump â and Harris shows every indication of continuing the pragmatic policies of her current boss.
Manufacturing jobs are at their highest level in a decade, aided by two signature Biden initiatives â the infrastructure act and the CHIPS Act that injected billions of dollars into American industry. Indeed, JPMorgan Chase recently said the economy had achieved the long-sought âsoft landing,â with lower inflation and steady job growth. And Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moodyâs Analytics, tweeted that the September jobs report âcements my view that the economy is about as good as it gets.â
One sour note is the ballooning national debt, which neither candidate has adequately addressed. But on this front, too, Harrisâs plan is superior: According to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, her agenda would increase the deficit by significantly less than Trumpâs, by $3.5 trillion through 2035 to his $7.5 trillion.
Harris has clearly been hurt by the perception that President Biden is responsible for higher costs. Yet many of those high prices â on housing and higher education, for instance â existed long before he became president.
Though Harris has long identified herself as both Black and South Asian American, Trump has fallaciously asserted that she only âhappened to turn Blackâ in recent years. In fact she spent much of her youth in a Black community surrounded by Black friends, graduated from historically Black Howard University, and has proudly identified with both her parentsâ cultures.
On economic policy, Trump has benefited from the widespread belief that he would do a better job of managing the economy and that a second term would rekindle what his supporters consider the halcyon days of 2019, when interest rates and inflation were low and there were fewer major global conflicts. Yet many voters seem unaware that at the core of his economic platform is a proposal most economists consider wildly dangerous: imposing tariffs as high as 20 percent on all imported goods, and more for those from China.
Though Trump asserts his plan would raise revenue, reduce the yawning trade gap, and strengthen American industry, economists almost across the board say it is also likely to trigger a global trade war, cause American job losses, and hurt consumers by raising prices on most goods.
At the same time, the economy today is humming along about as well as it ever did under Trump â and Harris shows every indication of continuing the pragmatic policies of her current boss.
Manufacturing jobs are at their highest level in a decade, aided by two signature Biden initiatives â the infrastructure act and the CHIPS Act that injected billions of dollars into American industry. Indeed, JPMorgan Chase recently said the economy had achieved the long-sought âsoft landing,â with lower inflation and steady job growth. And Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moodyâs Analytics, tweeted that the September jobs report âcements my view that the economy is about as good as it gets.â
One sour note is the ballooning national debt, which neither candidate has adequately addressed. But on this front, too, Harrisâs plan is superior: According to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, her agenda would increase the deficit by significantly less than Trumpâs, by $3.5 trillion through 2035 to his $7.5 trillion.
Harris has clearly been hurt by the perception that President Biden is responsible for higher costs. Yet many of those high prices â on housing and higher education, for instance â existed long before he became president.
And just as Trump cannot be solely blamed for the economic nosedive that occurred at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration cannot be solely blamed for the supply-chain bottlenecks and manufacturing shutdowns that raised costs on food, oil, and other goods during the pandemic.
Most important, inflation has cooled substantially, allowing the Federal Reserve to begin reducing interest rates and make borrowing cheaper.
On national security, the two candidates differ markedly in style and substance. Harris favors maintaining commitments to NATO and other American allies, and standing up to the antidemocratic behavior of Russia and China. âI will never waver in defense of Americaâs security and ideals, because in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs,â she said in August.
Her approach is more likely to result in a settlement of the Ukraine war that does not cave to President đĄVladimir Putin of Russia, as Trump â who has refused to say whether he wants Russia or Ukraine to prevail â seems more than capable of doing. She has also struck a balanced tone on Israel, making clear she supports its right to defend itself while urging a cease-fire to mitigate the vast civilian suffering in Gaza.
Critics of Bidenâs Israel policies from the left, some of whom have talked about voting for third-party candidates or staying home on Election Day, should reconsider. There is little reason to think that Trump will do anything beyond allowing the Netanyahu government to continue on as it has. Those protest votes intended to hurt Harris are as likely to hurt Palestinians as well.
Trump has been right to demand that the nation ask itself hard questions about where American interventions overseas truly serve the nationâs good. But it is no accident that scores of national security officials have warned that he is a danger to democracy and to American interests abroad because of his transactional nature and friendly embrace of enemies of democracy like Putin and President Viktor Orban of Hungary.
Even when he has sounded legitimate concerns â such as some NATO nations falling short of their defense spending targets â his blustery threats against American allies have given Putin âwhat he wanted â a divided alliance,â says H. R. McMaster, Trumpâs first national security adviser.
On immigration, Harris has again been saddled with blame for Bidenâs slow response to the flood of migrants across the US-Mexico border that created significant costs for Massachusetts, New York City, and many other locales. But she has been right to call for a more humane legislative solution that would both strengthen border security and create a pathway to citizenship for migrants.
Trumpâs policy is purely punitive: He says he would use the military to deportâ millions of migrants, whether or not they are employed and contributing to their communities. Thousands of American businesses â farms, food services, and construction firms in particular â could face major worker shortages if he does what he pledges to do. And why shouldnât we believe that he will?
On the environment, Harris would do far more to keep the country on track to reduce carbon emissions. Trumpâs obsession with ending incentives for wind, solar, and other clean energy industries â measures included in Bidenâs Inflation Reduction Act â is shortsighted, a retrograde position that even oil companies no longer agree with.
Lastly, it is vitally important to consider the types of people the candidates would bring into the federal government. Harrisâs victory would ensure that the Supreme Court, and the entire federal judiciary, would remain closer to the American mainstream on issues like abortion, gun safety, and environmental protection.
It would also mean that the powerful machinery of federal government would not be run by people hired purely for their loyalty to Trump, as The Heritage Foundationâs Project 2025 envisions. Such loyalists would be the first to follow his commands to use the fearsome machinery of the federal government to punish his enemies â something he loves to tell the crowds at his rallies that he intends to do.
Abortion is perhaps Harrisâs strongest argument for votersâ support, and for good reason. Trump has tried to run to the middle by claiming he would not support a national ban that so many in his party profess to want. But he cannot escape history: It was his nominees to the Supreme Court who overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
For Massachusetts, a second Trump administration could seriously affect federal assistance to the region. As president, Trump considered withholding aid to wildfire-ravaged California because it voted overwhelmingly against him in 2016. State officials worry that he would try to do the same to Massachusetts if a natural disaster wrecked havoc here.
He could also block federal grants for rebuilding the Cape Cod bridges. Or support raising taxes on the endowments of the regionâs elite universities, as his running mate, Senator JD Vance, has proposed. Or stall support for offshore wind projects the region needs to reach its goals for clean energy. These risks are not purely theoretical.
Some of Trumpâs supporters seem to not take him seriously, as if all the threats, extreme positions, rants, and oddball ravings are just part of an insult comedy routine. But we urge every Trump supporter to ask themselves this question before casting their ballot: Do you really want to take the chance that it was all just an actââđ
Consider, instead, the candidate who has pledged to be âa president who leads and listens; who is realistic, practical and has common sense,â as Harris told the nation in August. The candidate who has not sought to bully or demean, but who instead urges the people of America to âshow each other and the world who we are and what we stand for: Freedom, opportunity, compassion, dignity, fairness and endless possibilities.â
The choice is as clear as it is vital. On Nov. 5, let us decisively vote to send Kamala Harris to the White House. đđâ
Most important, inflation has cooled substantially, allowing the Federal Reserve to begin reducing interest rates and make borrowing cheaper.
On national security, the two candidates differ markedly in style and substance. Harris favors maintaining commitments to NATO and other American allies, and standing up to the antidemocratic behavior of Russia and China. âI will never waver in defense of Americaâs security and ideals, because in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs,â she said in August.
Her approach is more likely to result in a settlement of the Ukraine war that does not cave to President đĄVladimir Putin of Russia, as Trump â who has refused to say whether he wants Russia or Ukraine to prevail â seems more than capable of doing. She has also struck a balanced tone on Israel, making clear she supports its right to defend itself while urging a cease-fire to mitigate the vast civilian suffering in Gaza.
Critics of Bidenâs Israel policies from the left, some of whom have talked about voting for third-party candidates or staying home on Election Day, should reconsider. There is little reason to think that Trump will do anything beyond allowing the Netanyahu government to continue on as it has. Those protest votes intended to hurt Harris are as likely to hurt Palestinians as well.
Trump has been right to demand that the nation ask itself hard questions about where American interventions overseas truly serve the nationâs good. But it is no accident that scores of national security officials have warned that he is a danger to democracy and to American interests abroad because of his transactional nature and friendly embrace of enemies of democracy like Putin and President Viktor Orban of Hungary.
Even when he has sounded legitimate concerns â such as some NATO nations falling short of their defense spending targets â his blustery threats against American allies have given Putin âwhat he wanted â a divided alliance,â says H. R. McMaster, Trumpâs first national security adviser.
On immigration, Harris has again been saddled with blame for Bidenâs slow response to the flood of migrants across the US-Mexico border that created significant costs for Massachusetts, New York City, and many other locales. But she has been right to call for a more humane legislative solution that would both strengthen border security and create a pathway to citizenship for migrants.
Trumpâs policy is purely punitive: He says he would use the military to deportâ millions of migrants, whether or not they are employed and contributing to their communities. Thousands of American businesses â farms, food services, and construction firms in particular â could face major worker shortages if he does what he pledges to do. And why shouldnât we believe that he will?
On the environment, Harris would do far more to keep the country on track to reduce carbon emissions. Trumpâs obsession with ending incentives for wind, solar, and other clean energy industries â measures included in Bidenâs Inflation Reduction Act â is shortsighted, a retrograde position that even oil companies no longer agree with.
Lastly, it is vitally important to consider the types of people the candidates would bring into the federal government. Harrisâs victory would ensure that the Supreme Court, and the entire federal judiciary, would remain closer to the American mainstream on issues like abortion, gun safety, and environmental protection.
It would also mean that the powerful machinery of federal government would not be run by people hired purely for their loyalty to Trump, as The Heritage Foundationâs Project 2025 envisions. Such loyalists would be the first to follow his commands to use the fearsome machinery of the federal government to punish his enemies â something he loves to tell the crowds at his rallies that he intends to do.
Abortion is perhaps Harrisâs strongest argument for votersâ support, and for good reason. Trump has tried to run to the middle by claiming he would not support a national ban that so many in his party profess to want. But he cannot escape history: It was his nominees to the Supreme Court who overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
For Massachusetts, a second Trump administration could seriously affect federal assistance to the region. As president, Trump considered withholding aid to wildfire-ravaged California because it voted overwhelmingly against him in 2016. State officials worry that he would try to do the same to Massachusetts if a natural disaster wrecked havoc here.
He could also block federal grants for rebuilding the Cape Cod bridges. Or support raising taxes on the endowments of the regionâs elite universities, as his running mate, Senator JD Vance, has proposed. Or stall support for offshore wind projects the region needs to reach its goals for clean energy. These risks are not purely theoretical.
Some of Trumpâs supporters seem to not take him seriously, as if all the threats, extreme positions, rants, and oddball ravings are just part of an insult comedy routine. But we urge every Trump supporter to ask themselves this question before casting their ballot: Do you really want to take the chance that it was all just an actââđ
Consider, instead, the candidate who has pledged to be âa president who leads and listens; who is realistic, practical and has common sense,â as Harris told the nation in August. The candidate who has not sought to bully or demean, but who instead urges the people of America to âshow each other and the world who we are and what we stand for: Freedom, opportunity, compassion, dignity, fairness and endless possibilities.â
The choice is as clear as it is vital. On Nov. 5, let us decisively vote to send Kamala Harris to the White House. đđâ
Labels: Democrats, Donald Trump, Isreal, Republican party, The Boston Globe
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 7:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home