There has been a lot of analysis and commentary about last month’s presidential debate, regarding everything from the ABC moderators’ selective fact-checking to Harris’s statement that she is a gun owner to Trump’s reference to reports that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating dogs and cats. Also remarkable was Trump’s assertion that “[Harris] is a Marxist. Everyone knows she’s a Marxist. Her father is a Marxist professor in economics. And he educated her well.”
But perhaps the most significant -- and almost universally overlooked -- aspect of the debate was something that did not happen: Kamala Harris did not deny that she’s a Marxist. Moreover, she still has not denied she is a Marxist.
Many commentators have taken pains to deny this, such as by arguing that Harris’s plan is not sufficiently socialistic to be Marxist. Others have appealed to Communist Party disavowals of Harris, distancing Harris from her father’s views or tried to refute the claim that Harris’s father was a genuine Marxist. But Harris herself has yet even to address Trump’s accusation.
Is Kamala Harris a Marxist? To answer this question, we must first define the term. Essentially, Marxism is a materialistic, anti-religious socio-economic philosophy that views the human condition in terms of class struggle, sees capitalism as oppressive, and advocates socialistic redistribution of wealth. So to what extent, if at all, are Harris’s views consistent with these tenets? Here are four things to consider.
First, Harris has repeatedly emphasized equity, which is code for treating people unequally in order to achieve equal economic outcomes. For example, in a 2021 White House speech Harris urged that we must be “truly committed to the principles of equity in every way that we as government and as a society can enforce those important principles.” And in her 2022 comments on relief for Hurricane Ian victims, Harris advocated “giving resources based on equity understanding.” The concept of equity provides a clear rationale for wealth redistribution and hearkens to the Marxist dictum “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” This is why Liz Cheney remarked that Harris “sounds just like Karl Marx.” And, as some have pointed out, the norm of equity actually contradicts the norm of equality, as it is essentially a mandate to discriminate -- a practical consequence of Marxism that has tragically played out repeatedly over the last century.
Secondly, Harris’s endorsements of capitalism are consistently qualified in a socialist direction. For example in a 2021 Forbes interview, she said capitalism even in its best form makes the “false assumption” that everyone starts in the same place “particularly when we take into account race and gender.” She then adds that we must consider these disparities when allowing for economic competition. This, of course, constitutes a virtual blank check in terms of socialistic controls to compensate for such disparities in order to create equal outcomes. This is consistent with Marxist thought, which says that class struggle leads to exploitation and oppression in a capitalistic context -- injustices which can only be redressed through socialistic management of the economy.
Speaking of which, Harris has vowed to implement price controls should she become President, and this is itself a clear signal of a socialist economic agenda. Specifically, she has proposed a federal ban on grocery “price gouging,” capping prices of insulin and other prescription drugs, and generally lowering health care costs. And she promises to give $25,000 to first-time homebuyers. All told, the Harris plan would dole out over $1.5 trillion in government handouts. This is indicative of a philosophy of federal micromanagement of the economy -- an approach very much consistent with Marxist methods. And it is an approach that cannot remain piecemeal but necessarily becomes systemic, as specified market controls create unintended market effects that must then be addressed through further market controls, and so on down the slippery slope to wholesale socialism.
Finally, Harris has been plausibly accused of anti-religious bigotry. While serving as a California senator in 2018, Harris sponsored the Do No Harm Act, a bill that aimed to undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a critical federal safeguard of Americans’ religious freedom. The ironically titled Do No Harm Act would have required religious devotees and faith-based organizations to violate their religious convictions regarding traditional marriage and the sanctity of life.
Later, during her time on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Harris needled several judicial nominees about their membership with the Catholic charity group, Knights of Columbus. Harris repeatedly questioned the nominees’ ability to serve impartially given their standard Catholic advocacy of traditional marriage and the sanctity of life -- again, both views which for most Catholics are deeply informed by religious convictions. While Harris did not critique the nominees’ religious beliefs per se, her targeting their involvement with the Knights of Columbus, whose public services are directly inspired by their theological convictions, amounts to tacit religious discrimination.
Harris’s anti-religious stance was also evident in her 2021 support of the Equality Act, which would have undermined RFRA in the name of gender ideology, and her 2013 petitioning of the U.S. Supreme Court to force Hobby Lobby to cover abortifacients in their health care plans.Harris’s track record throughout her public career shows a consistent pattern of anti-religious bias, which is, again, consistent with the anti-religion stance of Marxism.
These facts do not prove that Kamala Harris is a Marxist, but they are certainly consistent with that possibility. Given Harris’ economic ideal of equity, her evident hostility toward free market capitalist principles, and her alarming record of anti-religious bias, not to mention her persistent refusal to deny Donald Trump’s nationally televised accusation that she is a Marxist, this should give us serious pause.
A common metaphor for abductive logic says, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. So what are we to make of Kamala Harris, given this principle? Her record does suggest that she holds to an anti-religious socio-economic philosophy that views the human condition in terms of class struggle, sees capitalism as oppressive, and advocates socialistic redistribution of wealth -- the very definition of Marxism.
It seems Trump’s accusation is indeed plausible: the Harris “duck” might very well be a Marxist one.