Harris tries imitation – insincerely

An old proverb says, “Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.” That might be true – if the imitation itself is sincere. In the case of Kamala Harris, it clearly is not. Over the weekend, she appropriated two of Donald Trump’s positions, on immigration and taxation. But the record shows that she does not mean what she says, either time. Voters must judge her words by her past record, her present acts – and the words she does not use.

Imitation no. 1: no tax on tips

Seven weeks ago, Donald Trump electrified the debate by proposing that taxation of tip income must end. As Charles Lipson explained, Trump has sound economic and political reasons to end taxes on tips. Those who earn tips for a living, spend that money at the margins – the true engine of economic growth. Canceling the tax on this income would help “service workers” in two ways. Not only could they keep the money, but they don’t have to waste time reporting it. Politically, Lipson called the idea “brilliant,” because with it, Trump connects to the working class in a practical way, not merely a symbolic one.

So at a gathering in Las Vegas, Kamala Harris, in imitation of Trump, said abolishing the tax on tips was a good idea. But why didn’t she advocate for this earlier? In fact the administration of which she is a part, promulgated stricter tip reporting requirements.

And they did it at the worst possible time: when so many of these very service workers were staying at home because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told them to. (Actual COVID sick calls were not nearly as numerous as people suppose.)

If she has suddenly discovered the virtue of this kind of tax relief, she must explain her record. Then again, she doesn’t like to explain anything. Twenty-two days after Biden quit the race, she still has granted no interviews.

Add to it: immediately an X celebrity called her on it.

Imitation no. 2: immigration policy

Immigration has been the most visible follow-on to Donald Trump’s signature issue: America First. He built hundreds of miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, and maintained a steady pace of deportations. In sharp contrast, President Biden, on his first day, issued an executive order telling wall-building contractors to down tools and go home. Furthermore, he has sent his Border Patrol agents to cut wires that the Texas Military Department strung along their share of the border. Texas, in turn, has restrung the wires and strung ballards along a shallow stretch of the Rio Grande. In addition, Texas is suing Washington over the wire cutting. Recently the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an injunction against the ballard string.

So ahead of her rally in Glendale, Arizona – the one where she draped the mezzanine in black to hide its emptiness – she pledged to get tougher on immigration. Or did she? She pushed a “bipartisan immigration bill” that still would have left in place a very high level of border crashing. That aside, her campaign advertising – and her shills at Time and Axios – feature her newfound pledge to get tough on immigration.

Ah – ahem, AHEM! She’s still the Border Czar, with powers Biden delegated to her. Why hasn’t she implemented some get-tough policies before this? If she were sincere in this Trump imitation, she would:

• Settle the concertina wire suit,
• Withdraw the anti-ballard-string complaint, and
• Make Washington’s peace with the Governor of Texas.

Instead, she tries to pretend.

Why that will likely fail

Axios, to their credit, reminded their readers that in 2020, Harris talked of decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Now she says her position on the border is the same as that of the administration. And what is that position? Remember: cutting the wires, suing over the ballard string, and in general, letting people in. If the administration has stopped doing that lately, that’s only because some political consultant told them to – just until the election. Even so, Axios’ Stef Kight called this a pivot from earlier “progressive” stances she has always taken.

A candidate can change his or her mind – but that candidate must:

1. Explain the change, and:
2. Implement it immediately if that be within his or her power.

Harris has done neither. Yet even this Trump imitation is likely to cost her votes – from her progressive base. Remember: “her” half of the electorate want everybody to pay their full income in taxes, and receive their food, water, shelter, and other allowances from the government. They want open borders, to displace American patriots and win a plebiscite to cede America over to a United Nations with the power to tax and to pass binding law. This Trump imitation is an admission of weakness. If her support were as great as she pretends, she would never imitate Trump or anyone else to her right. In logic, she would:

• Let in as many migrants as would come,
• Proclaim them all citizens, and
• Register them to vote.

How Trump should handle these pronouncements

Donald Trump has already castigated Harris for a policy that looks more like plagiarism than sincere imitation. He has made every point made above, but this Truth says it all:

Kamala Harris has flip-flopped on virtually every policy she has supported and lived by for her entire career, from the Border to Tips, and the Fake News Media isn’t reporting it. She sounds more like Trump than Trump, copying almost everything. She is conning the American public, and will flip right back. I will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! There will be no flipping!!!

That’s a good start. Trump also repeated his announcement of “the greatest mass deportation operation in American history.” That will resonate with citizens and lawful residents who have suffered not only labor displacement but also direct crime. Only today the New York Post reported on a violent attack on a couple in Coney Island, by two migrants.

Trump can and should do more – along the lines of things Kamala Harris dares not imitate. He should hold a joint press conference with Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and pledge to settle the concertina wire lawsuit and withdraw the buoy-string complaint. In fact, because it now takes troops to defend the border, Trump should pledge to authorize Abbott to take all necessary measures to stop the flow. Better yet, put it to Congress to so authorize – or as Article I Section 10 Clause 3 provides, consent to the waging of war.

That would put Harris on the spot – because it speaks to her “border czar” title, however unofficial that might be. It would force her to admit that her imitation of Trump was anything but sincere. And it is the way to win in November.