‘Kamala the Cop’ May Appeal More in 2024
Kamala Harris' history as a prosecutor, once viewed as a disadvantage during her initial presidential campaign, is no longer considered one.
TroibNews 
Five years ago, as Kamala Harris embarked on her unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, The New York Times published a critical op-ed titled “Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor.’” This piece tarnished Harris’ record as a prosecutor in California at a time when the Democratic Party’s base leaned significantly to the left on criminal justice issues.
Today, Harris could almost embrace the critique as a mark of distinction.
This development highlights how dramatically the politics of crime have evolved recently — even within her own party.
During the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, Harris largely distanced herself from her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney and California’s attorney general, viewing it as a liability as she tried to win over the progressive left. At that time, “progressive prosecutors” who aimed to mitigate the harsh impacts of the criminal justice system on defendants and their communities were gaining prominence in liberal areas.
In the years since, rising crime rates during the pandemic and increasing concerns over homelessness and drug addiction have heightened voter anxiety, a reality Democrats have acknowledged.
The truth about Harris’ prosecutorial record is that it was always more nuanced than her harshest critics suggested. She was neither the tough-on-crime figure scorned by the left nor the overly lenient activist portrayed by the right.
However, as Harris positions herself for a potential 2024 presidential bid and prepares for a showdown with former President Donald Trump, her prosecutorial past — once considered a hindrance — may now serve as an asset, particularly given Trump’s significant legal challenges.
Americans today rank crime and violence among their top concerns, with 61 percent of registered voters believing the criminal justice system is not stringent enough on criminals; in 2020, that figure was only 48 percent. National anxiety seems largely driven by the rise in crime during the pandemic that Biden and Harris inherited; but even as recent statistics show a notable decline in crime rates, voter concerns persist.
The political standing of the “progressive prosecutor” has also taken a significant hit. In deep-blue cities like San Francisco and Portland, voters have removed prosecutors who intended to reduce incarceration rates and pursue more lenient sentences in what they perceived as an overly harsh system. This voter dissatisfaction has also been evident in other liberal areas, with homelessness and drug addiction becoming major concerns among Democrats.
Earlier this year, former Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby — once a prominent figure in the progressive prosecutor movement — was convicted on federal charges of mortgage fraud and perjury, symbolizing the decline of the movement.
Moreover, calls from the left to “defund the police,” following George Floyd’s murder in 2020, are now clearly outside the Democratic mainstream. Major Democratic cities such as San Francisco, Washington, New York, and others have recently expanded police powers and increased criminal penalties.
The Biden administration has generally adopted a pragmatic, tough-on-crime stance while attempting — with mixed results — to implement limited criminal justice reforms. A Biden official recently summarized the political climate to POLITICO, stating, “Well-meaning ideas have gone too far, and we need a sensible approach.”
This shift could turn the phrase “Kamala the Cop” — once a pejorative used by her critics on the left — into an effective campaign slogan.
Harris’ potential contest with Trump further highlights the contrast between her as a prosecutor and Trump as a convict/defendant. In a 2019 campaign ad that has recently gone viral since Biden announced he would not run as the Democratic nominee, Harris stated, “I prosecuted sex predators. Trump is one... I held big banks accountable. He’s owned by them. I’m not just prepared to take on Trump, I’m prepared to beat him.”
The situation has only worsened for Trump, not just with the pending criminal cases but also with several major civil cases.
Last year, a jury in a civil case concluded that Trump had sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll and defamed her, resulting in a nearly $90 million payment. Earlier this year, he was ordered to pay over $450 million after the New York Attorney General’s office won a case alleging Trump fraudulently inflated his net worth to secure financial benefits. Both cases are currently on appeal.
However, Harris cannot rely solely on these facts to secure victory, especially since Republicans have tied crime politics to illegal immigration — a policy area she has overseen as vice president. At the recent RNC, Republicans criticized Harris on the administration’s border record, and this issue will likely remain a focal point of right-wing attacks if she secures the nomination.
Harris will likely highlight Trump as the antagonist, especially after he encouraged congressional Republicans to block a bipartisan immigration deal earlier this year that would have increased southern border enforcement. Trump’s intervention and his party’s compliance in Congress appear designed to prevent Democrats from gaining ground on this issue in an election year.
Nonetheless, the current political landscape is a remarkable turnaround for Harris. Once seemingly out of step with her party on key issues related to her professional and political identities, she now has a clear path to the nomination as Democrats unite behind her to move past the recent turmoil surrounding Biden’s reelection bid and to prevent Trump’s return to the White House.
In the coming weeks, Harris’ prosecutorial past will likely be examined again. Despite varied portrayals, her record is complex and difficult to categorize simplistically, though it deserves serious scrutiny.
Critics on the left who paint Harris as a criminal justice hard-liner will need to contend with her longstanding opposition to the death penalty — a stance that earned her the rebuke of the late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Meanwhile, conservatives who label Harris as soft on crime must address her attempts to tackle school truancy and absenteeism — an issue that has gained relevance as Americans face the educational disruptions caused by the pandemic.
The role of a prosecutor is often more complex than political commentators — and even prosecutors themselves — describe in the political arena. Eliminating crime lacks silver bullets, and clear-cut injustices or wrongful convictions that gain significant attention are rare.
Nevertheless, Harris and her team likely view her legal resume as less problematic than it was five years ago.
Sanya Singh contributed to this report for TROIB News
Today, Harris could almost embrace the critique as a mark of distinction.
This development highlights how dramatically the politics of crime have evolved recently — even within her own party.
During the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, Harris largely distanced herself from her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney and California’s attorney general, viewing it as a liability as she tried to win over the progressive left. At that time, “progressive prosecutors” who aimed to mitigate the harsh impacts of the criminal justice system on defendants and their communities were gaining prominence in liberal areas.
In the years since, rising crime rates during the pandemic and increasing concerns over homelessness and drug addiction have heightened voter anxiety, a reality Democrats have acknowledged.
The truth about Harris’ prosecutorial record is that it was always more nuanced than her harshest critics suggested. She was neither the tough-on-crime figure scorned by the left nor the overly lenient activist portrayed by the right.
However, as Harris positions herself for a potential 2024 presidential bid and prepares for a showdown with former President Donald Trump, her prosecutorial past — once considered a hindrance — may now serve as an asset, particularly given Trump’s significant legal challenges.
Americans today rank crime and violence among their top concerns, with 61 percent of registered voters believing the criminal justice system is not stringent enough on criminals; in 2020, that figure was only 48 percent. National anxiety seems largely driven by the rise in crime during the pandemic that Biden and Harris inherited; but even as recent statistics show a notable decline in crime rates, voter concerns persist.
The political standing of the “progressive prosecutor” has also taken a significant hit. In deep-blue cities like San Francisco and Portland, voters have removed prosecutors who intended to reduce incarceration rates and pursue more lenient sentences in what they perceived as an overly harsh system. This voter dissatisfaction has also been evident in other liberal areas, with homelessness and drug addiction becoming major concerns among Democrats.
Earlier this year, former Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby — once a prominent figure in the progressive prosecutor movement — was convicted on federal charges of mortgage fraud and perjury, symbolizing the decline of the movement.
Moreover, calls from the left to “defund the police,” following George Floyd’s murder in 2020, are now clearly outside the Democratic mainstream. Major Democratic cities such as San Francisco, Washington, New York, and others have recently expanded police powers and increased criminal penalties.
The Biden administration has generally adopted a pragmatic, tough-on-crime stance while attempting — with mixed results — to implement limited criminal justice reforms. A Biden official recently summarized the political climate to POLITICO, stating, “Well-meaning ideas have gone too far, and we need a sensible approach.”
This shift could turn the phrase “Kamala the Cop” — once a pejorative used by her critics on the left — into an effective campaign slogan.
Harris’ potential contest with Trump further highlights the contrast between her as a prosecutor and Trump as a convict/defendant. In a 2019 campaign ad that has recently gone viral since Biden announced he would not run as the Democratic nominee, Harris stated, “I prosecuted sex predators. Trump is one... I held big banks accountable. He’s owned by them. I’m not just prepared to take on Trump, I’m prepared to beat him.”
The situation has only worsened for Trump, not just with the pending criminal cases but also with several major civil cases.
Last year, a jury in a civil case concluded that Trump had sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll and defamed her, resulting in a nearly $90 million payment. Earlier this year, he was ordered to pay over $450 million after the New York Attorney General’s office won a case alleging Trump fraudulently inflated his net worth to secure financial benefits. Both cases are currently on appeal.
However, Harris cannot rely solely on these facts to secure victory, especially since Republicans have tied crime politics to illegal immigration — a policy area she has overseen as vice president. At the recent RNC, Republicans criticized Harris on the administration’s border record, and this issue will likely remain a focal point of right-wing attacks if she secures the nomination.
Harris will likely highlight Trump as the antagonist, especially after he encouraged congressional Republicans to block a bipartisan immigration deal earlier this year that would have increased southern border enforcement. Trump’s intervention and his party’s compliance in Congress appear designed to prevent Democrats from gaining ground on this issue in an election year.
Nonetheless, the current political landscape is a remarkable turnaround for Harris. Once seemingly out of step with her party on key issues related to her professional and political identities, she now has a clear path to the nomination as Democrats unite behind her to move past the recent turmoil surrounding Biden’s reelection bid and to prevent Trump’s return to the White House.
In the coming weeks, Harris’ prosecutorial past will likely be examined again. Despite varied portrayals, her record is complex and difficult to categorize simplistically, though it deserves serious scrutiny.
Critics on the left who paint Harris as a criminal justice hard-liner will need to contend with her longstanding opposition to the death penalty — a stance that earned her the rebuke of the late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Meanwhile, conservatives who label Harris as soft on crime must address her attempts to tackle school truancy and absenteeism — an issue that has gained relevance as Americans face the educational disruptions caused by the pandemic.
The role of a prosecutor is often more complex than political commentators — and even prosecutors themselves — describe in the political arena. Eliminating crime lacks silver bullets, and clear-cut injustices or wrongful convictions that gain significant attention are rare.
Nevertheless, Harris and her team likely view her legal resume as less problematic than it was five years ago.
Sanya Singh contributed to this report for TROIB News
