The Case for Why Kamala Harris Should Never Become President

Modern Day Democrats Are Not Liberals, At Least By Historical Standards.

In modern day vernacular, the word “liberal” is a term used by conservatives to label their Democratic counterparts, especially those who advocate progressive theories of social and economic justice. But this interpretation of “liberalism” is an evolutionary one created by conservatives in response to the 20th century progressive movement. “Classical Liberalism” was first posited in 18th century Europe as expressed through the observations of Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes and other advocates of personal liberty, individual rights and the rule of law. Adam Smith summarized the tenets of Classical Liberalism when he said “Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man.” The American Founders were heavily influenced by these tenets, and their commitment to the principles of classical liberalism is reflected in our nation’s founding documents and the political culture of early America. This culture, largely abandoned by progressive Democrats, has obstructed many attempts by the Left to fundamentally transform America. Now California Senator Kamala Harris would like to take her turn at fundamental transformation by serving as our President. Here is why that would be a bad idea.

Today’s Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Do Not Believe in the Individual.

Democratic Presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris share a political philosophy that denies American exceptionalism and seeks a more collectivist approach to public policy. Based on their past statements and Leftist political ideology, it is not hyperbole to say their focus on the collective shares much in common with that of former Communist leader Joseph Stalin. In 1929, Stalin would express his frustration with “American exceptionalism” as a political culture. His frustration was well founded because he knew America’s commitment to individual rights, respect for private property and aversion to European style social class made our nation uniquely resistant to the influence of Marxism.

Fast forward to today’s Presidential race, and we can see how Warren, Sanders and Harris are pulling every Leftist trick in the book to undermine individual rights and private property in favor of what Barack Obama once called “collective salvation.” Every speech they give and every policy position they take is carefully crafted to explain why we are all the victims of an unjust society that favors the wealthy class. Stalin would be proud of these three because each has taken a unique spin on attacking American exceptionalism and its commitment to free markets and individual rights. For example, let’s look at a recent proposal by Kamala Harris to better understand why she should never be allowed to set foot in the White House.

Kamala Harris is Selling the Idea of Widespread Discrimination in Employment and Wages.

Kamala Harris is on track to overcome both Warren and Sanders in their bidding war to offer the most lucrative giveaways to voters who think they are victims. She has endorsed a range of socialist justice initiatives that include reparations for slavery and a proposal for “basic income” handouts. More recently, however, Harris has been pushing an equal-pay proposal that is largely a warmed-over replay of an Obama policy that was instituted by executive order, one that President Trump quickly rescinded.

Harris’ argument begins with the assumption that employers are practicing wide-spread wage discrimination against women and minorities. To defend her proposal, she points to the frequently cited but easily discredited Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) metric called the “raw wage gap.” The most recent BLS wage gap shows that the average female employee makes only 81% of a man’s wages. This metric is calculated by adding up all the median weekly compensation for full-time male workers, and likewise for women, and then dividing by the number of workers in each respective group. In other words, the metric is a simple average of wages for men and women. The raw wage gap does not account for differences in education, years of experience, job classification or type, number of hours worked, or preference for non-compensated benefits like flextime. The problem is that when one accounts for these factors, more comprehensive studies show the gap drops from about 20 percent to around six percent. This six percent margin might be accounted for by discrimination, or by other legitimate factors that have yet to be studied. In either case, this metric proves nothing without credible evidence, something that Harris believes she does not need to fundamentally transform the rights of employers.

Harris Wants Government to Dictate How Much Employers Should Pay Their Employees.

Harris’ proposal would force employers with 100 employees or more to certify to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that they have no wage discrimination. As proposed, the EEOC would require more than 100,000 American employers to provide their bureaucrats with periodic access to their private employment records in order to prove their company does not discriminate. In other words, employers would be considered guilty until proven innocent. This practice would undoubtedly lead to excessive litigation as employers challenge the EEOC over intrusion into their private business affairs. Further, the unintended consequence of such a proposal is that it would open the door for the EEOC to seek regulation over private sector hiring and compensation practices based on quotas or other considerations. If you do not believe this could happen, note that regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission have previously considered a quota system at the board level for public companies based on their progressive diversity agenda.

If Wage Discrimination Exists, Employers Would Be Working Against Their Own Interests.

Progressives like Harris ignore the fact that there is an intuitive argument that can be made against the credibility of the raw wage gap, one that suggests such discrimination does not make economic sense. Thomas Sowell, the economist and political philosopher, has made this point by asking why an employer would pay a man a significantly higher wage when they could hire an equally qualified woman for less? If employers discriminated against women, it would create an incentive for employers to hire equally qualified women before men. Increased competition for female employees would, in turn, lead to increasing wages for women as employment markets adjust to increasing demand. This naturally occurring process in market dynamics would reduce any true gap in wages between men and women without instituting oppressive government regulation.

In the End, the Harris Agenda is Nothing More Than Another Progressive Appeal to Victims.

Men and women performing equal work should receive equal pay. On this key point we can all agree. But as a former Attorney General of the State of California, it says a lot that Kamala Harris would propose legislation that parts with the time-honored principle in American jurisprudence of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even employers deserve adherence to this principle. But when a progressive Leftist like Harris is seeking political power, they are far too likely to express their contempt for the principles of Classical Liberalism in the policies they propose. That alone should be enough for any traditional American to say that Kamala Harris should never see the inside of the White House.

Help a Millennial Understand Why America Is an Exceptional Nation.

If you are the parent of a millennial and want to inspire them to understand more about America’s founding principles, there is something that you can do. Give them a copy of Conquering the Political Divide – How the Constitution Can Heal Our Polarized Nation. This book provides the grounding we all need in basic civics and economics to help us defend our nation from progressive ideology. Order your copy today by clicking here.

If you would like to suggest a topic for a future blog, or to provide us with feedback on this commentary, email us at: feedback@FreeNationMedia.com

Eric A. Beck
Editor-In-Chief
Free Nation Media LLC
Greenville, South Carolina


###

Posted in

Eric Beck

Leave a Comment





Categories

Subscribe!

Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.