A Small-C Conservative Case for Kamala Harris

A political journalist argues for Kamala Harris from a conservative perspective, highlighting her respect for tradition and institutions as key for stability and democracy amidst today’s chaos. He critiques Trump’s undermining of civic order and emphasizes the need for unity and optimism in leadership.

In a rather unexpected take, a veteran political journalist is making a case for Kamala Harris from a conservative standpoint. The piece opens with a reflection on war. The author recalls visiting Beirut in 1978 when chaos ruled amidst various factions. This experience led to a revelation: stability is not guaranteed, particularly in places once thought stable. And, that sense of civic order is critical in a democracy, particularly over the past few years.

The argument unfolds that the pressing need for stable governance is why Harris is the right choice for president. The author notes that the current crisis of disorder, which has intensified during the Trump administration, has put freedoms at risk. Reassuringly, he asserts that Harris respects the traditions that underpin American democracy, which is key to his support. He emphasizes her shift from divisive identity politics and a more pessimistic attitude typically associated with academic circles of the left.

Citing former President Reagan’s inaugural cry that “government is the problem,” the author contends Reagan was mistaken. While he acknowledges that government can falter—sometimes acting too heavy-handedly—he posits that a functioning government serves as a counterbalance against unchecked capitalism and its excesses. It’s about finding that delicate balance, you know?

Harris’s background in law gives her insight into government’s essential role in providing stability, unlike Donald Trump, who has undermined trust in vital institutions. The military comes up as an example of citizenship demands. Sacrifice for the greater good is paramount, yet Trump has been criticized for his disparaging comments about service members. The author argues that these views showcase Trump’s fundamental disconnect with democratic values.

This perspective, though somewhat unconventional, calls for a reevaluation of political allegiances based not solely on party lines but also on governance principles. Harris’s approach, which balances conservatism’s call for order with the need for inclusivity, points towards a path more conducive to a stable democracy.

Ultimately, through this lens, Kamala Harris emerges not just as a candidate for many, but as a beacon of stability and a call to civility in a divided nation. Emphasizing unity and optimism, the author’s case urges voters to consider a leadership style focused on nurturing democratic institutions rather than eroding them.

The piece moves the conversation beyond party identity and towards essential values vital for maintaining a healthy democracy in turbulent times. It’s a reminder that the foundations of freedom require both respect for tradition and a willingness to adapt to changing currents.

In summary, this New York Times opinion piece makes a compelling conservative case for supporting Kamala Harris for president. By emphasizing the importance of stability, unity, and optimism, the article critiques the divisive politics of the Trump era and highlights Harris’s commitment to the traditions that uphold democracy. The author suggests that leadership encompassing both tradition and adaptability is essential for thriving in a complex world.

Original Source: www.nytimes.com