Kamala Harris’ career as a prosecutor left her unprepared for a fair fight

The results are in and Donald Trump has scored an impressive victory in the 2024 presidential race. Pundits, pollsters and idiots will try to explain why Vice President Kamala Harris did so poorly on Election Day for a while.

Some of their explanations will be better than others. But there’s a clear, obvious, general reason why Harris’ presidential bid went up in flames: Her experience as a prosecutor left her ill-prepared for a fair fight.

Harris spent 28 years of her professional life representing government – ​​first as attorney general, then as an elected district attorney in San Francisco, and finally as the elected attorney general of California. In all these posts, Harris enjoyed all the unfair advantages that the American legal system gives to the prosecutor.

In criminal cases, she was free to impose excessive charges on defendants, to force plea deals, and to threaten them with an “accusation.”probation“If they insisted on their right to a jury trial.

She could also knowingly prosecute innocent people, withhold evidence, rely on unreliable witnesses, and violate defendants’ civil rights, knowing that “immunity from prosecution‘ would protect her from any civil liability.

Throughout her career, Harris was not afraid to take advantage of these advantages.

As District Attorney of San Francisco, Harris used California’s three strikes law aims to increase sentencing for defendants charged with non-violent crimes. She fought to keep cases out of the city’s drug court, where defendants received lighter sentences and the opportunity to avoid jail time.

Under Harris, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office failed to notify defense attorneys of the drug lab technician’s misconduct. When she was attorney general, in Harris’ office defended dirty prosecutors who ran an unconstitutional prison snitch program.

As attorney general, she was happy to also tilt the balance of democracy in her favor.

In California, the attorney general is responsible for writing the titles and briefs for ballot initiatives. Harris used this narrative force to write biased language about a pension reform initiative that she and her union allies oppose.

As a U.S. senator, Harris continued to take advantage of the familiar prosecutorial opportunities the job offered.

She shined during committee hearings by asking unfair, leading questions to imprisoned testifiers. (The chamber’s rules of decorum prevented her victims from arguing too much.) Her record on actual legislation was less impressive.

By 2019, her supposed talent for “prosecuting the case against Donald Trump” generated enough buzz for Harris to make a bid for the presidency. It turned out to be disastrous.

Without her prosecution safety net, Harris was left stranded. Instead of asking questions, she had to answer them. Her responses were characteristically incoherent and unconvincing. On the level playing field of the Democratic primary debate, she completely failed to defend her record or stand up for herself.

The campaign policies she produced were ridiculously complex and completely uninspiring to the primary voters she had to win over. She ultimately dropped out of the race before a single vote was cast.

Joe Biden ultimately chose her as his running mate. It doesn’t take much cynicism to think he set her up not to have a vice president who could surpass him in the White House.

That seemed like a wise decision by Biden for a while. Harris’ reputation as an untalented, boring politician only grew stronger during her time as vice president.

Her poor performance didn’t stop her from being the right person in the right place at the right time, when a mix of Biden’s unpopularity and failing capabilities made it clear to Democrats that he could not remain their nominee.

As a presidential candidate, Harris clearly tried to correct her shortcomings as a terrible retail politician by hiding. It took her weeks to do media interviews. The walkbacks on all her past progressive policy positions were mediated by anonymous staffers.

That kind of opaqueness and risk aversion is fine for a prosecutor who knows he will almost certainly win, as long as he doesn’t make any major mistakes. It doesn’t work in difficult elections, where voters expect you to make the case for yourself in a positive way.

Despite Donald Trump’s countless flaws, he has never been afraid to put himself out there as a high-profile defendant trying to poison the jury pool. That strategy ultimately worked out a lot better.

Last night’s result is surprising, as opinion polls predicted a much closer battle. But we shouldn’t be too surprised about it.

Harris’s entire career has been based on arguing from an advantaged position against weakened opponents. She excels in that role.

But in a fair fight where she couldn’t force people to do what she wanted, she proved completely outmatched and unprepared.