An Open Letter To My Fellow American Voters

Uncategorized Oct 28, 2024

As someone who lived in California through Kamala Harris’s tenure as both Attorney General and Senator, I have had ample opportunity to witness her political trajectory. Now, as Harris campaigns for the highest office in the land, her candidacy deserves scrutiny beyond the platitudes and soundbites. Harris promotes herself as a fighter for justice, equality, and progress. However, her career reveals a record often marked by political opportunism, ethical lapses, and a disregard for both accountability and individual rights. Her “vision” for America leans heavily on expanded government intervention and regulation—a vision that undermines personal responsibility and could threaten the foundational principles that underpin our republic.

The Foundation of Harris’s Career: A Relationship Built on Political Favoritism

Let’s begin with the formative years of Harris’s career, which tell us much about her ethical foundation. In the 1990s, Harris’s relationship with then-California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown catapulted her into the political realm, not by merit alone, but by leveraging personal connections. Brown, thirty years her senior and a dominant force in California politics, appointed Harris to two well-compensated positions on the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. These appointments, which paid Harris more than $400,000 over five years, laid the groundwork for her political ascent, positioning her within California’s political elite.

Harris’s attempts to downplay Brown’s role in her early career speak volumes. While she frequently touts her “self-made” success, she strategically omits the considerable influence Brown had in her rise. In truth, Harris’s career is not the story of individual achievement she so often presents but rather one enabled by a relationship she prefers the public overlook—a convenient distortion for someone who now espouses radical reforms under the banner of transparency and integrity.

Contradictions in Criminal Justice: Harris’s Prosecutorial Record

Harris’s tenure as a “tough-on-crime” prosecutor in San Francisco is riddled with contradictions. She ran as a crime fighter, using the language of justice to win public favor. Yet her actual performance as District Attorney was far less robust. Under her watch, the conviction rates in serious criminal cases remained lower than those in other major California cities, despite her rhetoric promising rigorous enforcement. The discrepancy between her claims and her record suggests a willingness to shift narratives to fit political winds rather than maintain a coherent stance on law and order.

A specific example of her inconsistency is her handling of truancy laws. As District Attorney, Harris championed a law that held parents legally accountable if their children missed school excessively, leading to potential fines or jail time for parents. On the surface, this appears to reflect a hardline stance, but it also disproportionately impacted lower-income families who often face barriers to regular attendance beyond parental neglect. Harris used these prosecutions to build her “tough-on-crime” image, yet it placed undue burden on struggling families and has been criticized as overly punitive. Ironically, she now portrays herself as a progressive advocate for families, despite her earlier stance that criminalized parents of truant children.

The Crime Lab Scandal and Harris’s Prioritization of Career Over Justice

Perhaps one of the most concerning examples from Harris’s career was her involvement in the 2010 crime lab scandal. While serving as San Francisco’s District Attorney, Harris oversaw a department plagued by significant misconduct. Deborah Madden, a crime lab technician, was found to have tampered with evidence in hundreds of drug cases, even consuming some of the drugs herself. This unethical handling of evidence compromised numerous cases and ultimately led to over a thousand convictions being dismissed.

When faced with this scandal, Harris failed to disclose Madden’s misconduct to defense attorneys in a timely manner, a violation of legal ethics and a fundamental betrayal of her duty to ensure fair trials. Harris prioritized damage control over transparency, effectively sweeping the issue under the rug to preserve her career trajectory. Her response to this scandal illustrates a pattern: Harris consistently makes decisions that protect her interests, even at the expense of justice and public trust. It’s a troubling tendency for someone who now seeks to lead the country and who claims to champion “fairness” and “accountability.”

The Foreclosure Crisis and Harris’s Missed Opportunity to Champion Justice

In 2012, during the foreclosure crisis that rocked the nation, Harris was in a prime position to hold financial institutions accountable. As Attorney General of California, she led negotiations in a multistate settlement with the country’s largest banks, securing $20 billion for California homeowners affected by the crisis. While she touts this as one of her significant achievements, the reality was more nuanced—and, arguably, more disappointing. The funds Harris secured provided little direct relief to homeowners. Instead, much of the settlement went toward state programs and debt restructuring that ultimately left many Californians struggling to keep their homes.

Moreover, Harris declined to prosecute OneWest Bank for its alleged misconduct during the crisis. OneWest, a bank known for its aggressive foreclosure practices, had a history of abuses, yet Harris’s office chose not to take action. Critics argue that her decision was influenced by political considerations, given that OneWest’s then-CEO, Steven Mnuchin, later became part of the Trump administration. Whether motivated by pragmatism or political calculation, Harris’s decision reflected a lack of resolve to confront powerful interests on behalf of ordinary citizens—a pattern that raises questions about how she would handle corporate accountability on a national level.

A Wavering Stance on Healthcare: Harris’s Healthcare Flip-Flops

In recent years, Harris has shifted her position on healthcare multiple times, demonstrating an alarming lack of consistency on one of the most critical issues facing Americans today. Initially, she advocated for a “Medicare for All” plan, a single-payer system that would eliminate private insurance—a stance that garnered support from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. However, as the political climate shifted, so did Harris’s position. She later attempted to backpedal, suggesting a hybrid system that would retain private insurance options, a stark departure from her original stance.

This waffling reveals a pattern in Harris’s approach to policy: she frequently changes her position to align with what she perceives as the most politically advantageous stance. For a politician vying for the presidency, such inconsistency is troubling. Americans deserve a leader whose convictions are clear, not one who modifies her principles depending on the audience or the latest poll numbers.

Selective Advocacy: Harris’s Track Record on Civil Liberties

Harris often champions herself as a defender of civil liberties, yet her record suggests selective advocacy. While she now vocalizes support for criminal justice reform, as Attorney General, she resisted efforts to implement policies that would have increased accountability for law enforcement. For example, she opposed a bill mandating the use of body cameras statewide for police officers. In a time when public trust in law enforcement was—and remains—under severe strain, Harris’s reluctance to advocate for transparency speaks volumes about her priorities.

Additionally, her office fought to keep non-violent offenders incarcerated to maintain California’s prison labor force, a stance that stands in stark contrast to her later calls for reform. This selective approach to civil liberties exposes a fundamental inconsistency between Harris’s actions and her professed values, raising valid concerns about her authenticity and commitment to genuine justice reform.

Conclusion: Kamala Harris’s Vision Is Not America’s Future

Kamala Harris’s career is marked by inconsistency, opportunism, and self-interest. Her rapid ascent was facilitated by personal connections rather than exceptional leadership or principled action. Her record reveals a politician who is all too willing to alter her stance or obfuscate her past if it serves her ambitions. As voters, we should ask ourselves: Do we want a leader who will expand the role of government, potentially at the expense of individual rights and personal accountability?