Breaking
Sponsor Advertisement
Kamala Harris Omits Biden From "Most Effective" Presidents List
Image for: Kamala Harris Omits Biden From "Most Effective" Presidents List

Kamala Harris Omits Biden From "Most Effective" Presidents List

Former Vice President Kamala Harris named several past leaders but notably excluded former President Joe Biden when asked to identify America's most effective presidents at a conference in Nashville. Her remarks follow reports of post-election tensions and criticisms detailed in her recent book.
Jump to The Flipside Perspectives

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, speaking at the National Urban League Conference in Nashville on Friday, declined to include former President Joe Biden in her list of America's most effective presidents. During a public discussion with National Urban League President Marc Morial, Harris hesitated before naming a selection of historical figures, conspicuously omitting the president under whom she served for four years.

"I know this is going to be controversial coming from me, in particular. We need to revisit the Electoral College. We need to revisit the point of expanding the court, to 13 justices like we have 13 district courts." — Kamala Harris, Former Vice President

The omission follows a period of reported strain between Harris and former President Biden, particularly in the aftermath of the Democratic Party's defeat in the 2024 presidential election. After Biden concluded his re-election campaign and endorsed Harris as the Democratic nominee, she ultimately lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote to President Donald Trump. This political landscape forms the backdrop for Harris's recent comments and her broader political positioning as a prominent figure within the Democratic Party.

When pressed by Morial to name effective presidents, Harris initially demurred, stating, "Oh Marc, don’t make me do that." She then began her list with former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, commending him for his actions during the Great Depression. Harris highlighted Roosevelt's expansion of the federal government's role and programs such as Social Security. "He did good," she remarked, adding, "Social Security… when I think about what he did in terms of investing in the people during dire times and talking about the role and responsibility of government." She also acknowledged Roosevelt's unsuccessful attempt to expand the Supreme Court, noting the significant political opposition he encountered. Harris articulated Roosevelt's belief in government's three core responsibilities: public health, public safety, and public education.

Following Roosevelt, Harris cited former President John F. Kennedy and former President Lyndon B. Johnson, crediting Kennedy with laying the groundwork for policies that Johnson subsequently advanced during his administration. She then praised former President Barack Obama, a mention that garnered applause from the audience. Harris lauded Obama for addressing long-standing issues within the nation's healthcare system, specifically referencing the Affordable Care Act, despite considerable political opposition. Her selections primarily focused on Democratic presidents known for expanding federal programs and addressing societal challenges through governmental intervention.

Conspicuously absent from Harris's curated list was former President Biden, with whom she shared the White House for four years as Vice President. This public omission aligns with criticisms Harris previously leveled against the Biden White House in her book, "107 Days." In the book, Harris contended that the administration failed to adequately defend her against Republican attacks concerning immigration, particularly during her role as "border czar." She wrote, "When Republicans mischaracterized my role as ‘border czar,’ no one in the White House comms team helped me to effectively push back and explain what I had really been tasked to do, nor to highlight any of the progress I had achieved." She further elaborated, "Instead, I shouldered the blame for the porous border, an issue that had proved intractable for Democratic and Republican administrations alike." These past remarks underscore a pattern of Harris distancing herself from certain aspects of the previous administration's performance, particularly regarding highly contentious policy areas.

During her appearance in Nashville, Harris also previewed policy positions that could form the core of a future presidential campaign. She suggested the nation should re-evaluate the Electoral College and revisit proposals to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices. "I know this is going to be controversial coming from me, in particular," Harris stated. "We need to revisit the Electoral College. We need to revisit the point of expanding the court, to 13 justices like we have 13 district courts." Additionally, Harris advocated for lawmakers to reconsider the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. While she did not explicitly declare her intention to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, her remarks clearly indicated that these issues would remain central to her political agenda and potential future aspirations. The focus on these significant structural reforms suggests an attempt to carve out a distinct political platform for herself.

Harris's public statements, particularly the exclusion of former President Biden from her list of effective leaders and her articulation of progressive policy reforms, are likely to be interpreted within the context of her future political ambitions. As a prominent figure within the Democratic Party, her views carry weight and could signal a strategic shift in the party's direction or an individual's attempt to differentiate themselves. Her choices of effective presidents—all Democrats—and her proposed policy changes reflect a progressive vision that emphasizes government intervention and structural re-evaluation, potentially setting the stage for future intra-party debates and a distinct campaign narrative as the next election cycle approaches.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

Former Vice President Kamala Harris's recent statements at the National Urban League Conference reflect a progressive agenda focused on systemic reform and addressing historical inequities. Her emphasis on leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Barack Obama highlights a commitment to using governmental power to achieve social good, expand access, and protect vulnerable populations. Roosevelt's New Deal programs, Johnson's Great Society initiatives, and Obama's Affordable Care Act are all examples of federal action aimed at collective well-being and social safety nets, which are core tenets of progressive thought.

The omission of former President Joe Biden from her list, while notable, can be viewed through the lens of strategic differentiation and a desire to articulate a more robust progressive vision, particularly after the 2024 election outcome. Her criticisms in "107 Days" regarding the lack of White House support on immigration issues underscore a progressive frustration with perceived inaction or insufficient defense against political attacks, especially on matters of social justice.

Harris's proposals to revisit the Electoral College, expand the Supreme Court, and grant statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., are deeply aligned with progressive efforts to achieve a more equitable and representative democracy. Progressives argue that the Electoral College disproportionately empowers smaller, less diverse states, undermining the principle of "one person, one vote" and often disenfranchising urban populations and communities of color. Expanding the Supreme Court is seen by many as a necessary step to rebalance a judiciary perceived as increasingly politicized and out of step with the will of the majority. Granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico is viewed as a matter of basic democratic rights, ensuring full representation for hundreds of thousands of American citizens who currently lack it. These proposals collectively aim to dismantle structural barriers and foster a more inclusive and responsive government.

Conservative View

Former Vice President Kamala Harris's recent remarks, particularly her suggested policy positions, warrant careful scrutiny from a conservative perspective. Her call to "revisit" the Electoral College and expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices represents a fundamental challenge to foundational American institutions. The Electoral College, designed by the Founders, ensures that presidential elections reflect a broader representation of states and diverse populations, preventing a few populous urban centers from dictating the national outcome. Undermining this system risks centralizing power and diminishing the voice of individual states, contrary to principles of federalism and limited government.

Similarly, expanding the Supreme Court is viewed by conservatives as a dangerous political maneuver, often termed "court-packing." This proposal threatens the independence and integrity of the judiciary, transforming it from an impartial arbiter of law into a partisan tool. Such an action would erode public trust in the rule of law and set a precedent for future administrations to manipulate the court for political gain, rather than upholding its constitutional role.

Harris's praise for Franklin D. Roosevelt, particularly his expansion of federal government programs like Social Security, aligns with a philosophy of increasing government intervention. While Social Security has become an entrenched program, the conservative viewpoint generally favors market-based solutions and individual responsibility over expansive government entitlements. Her focus on government's role in public health, safety, and education, while seemingly benign, can often translate into federal overreach into areas traditionally managed by states or private entities. From a conservative standpoint, the most effective presidents are those who uphold constitutional principles, protect individual liberties, and foster free markets, rather than those who expand federal power at the expense of states and individuals.

Common Ground

Despite the clear ideological differences, there are potential areas of common ground that could emerge from the discussions prompted by former Vice President Harris's remarks. Both conservatives and progressives share an interest in effective governance and ensuring that the American system functions optimally for its citizens. While they may diverge on the methods, the underlying goal of a strong, stable nation is universal.

For instance, while conservatives may oppose expanding the Supreme Court, a shared concern for judicial legitimacy and public trust in the justice system exists across the political spectrum. Conversations could focus on ways to enhance judicial integrity, ensure fair application of the law, and address perceptions of politicization without resorting to structural changes that deeply divide the nation. Similarly, while the Electoral College debate is contentious, both sides can agree on the importance of voter participation and ensuring that all voices are heard in the democratic process. Discussions might explore how to encourage greater civic engagement and ensure fair representation within existing frameworks, rather than immediately advocating for radical overhauls.

Regarding issues like public safety and public education, Harris's mention of these as core governmental responsibilities resonates broadly. While approaches to funding, curriculum, and policing may differ, the shared objective of safe communities and educated citizens is undeniable. Bipartisan efforts could focus on identifying best practices in these areas, leveraging both public and private sector strengths, and ensuring accountability for results. Finding common ground often involves focusing on shared problems and desired outcomes, even if the preferred solutions originate from different ideological starting points.

What's your view on this story? Share your thoughts and remember to consider multiple perspectives and being respectful when forming and voicing your opinion. "If you resort to personal attacks, you have already lost the debate..."

Advertisement

Contact Us About This Article

Have a question or comment about this article? We'd love to hear from you.

About Fair Side News

At Fair Side News, we believe in presenting news with perspectives from both sides of the political spectrum. Our goal is to help readers understand different viewpoints and find common ground on important issues.