What Connects the Harris Agenda? "Speed"
The Democratic nominee is not heavily focusing on the Biden administration’s larger, more gradual policies during their campaign.
TroibNews 
President Joe Biden initiated an extensive experiment during his first term with the objective of enhancing American manufacturing, promoting green energy, and strengthening the economy's resilience against disruptions.
However, his vice president isn’t prominently campaigning on these initiatives.
The reason? Primarily, these are policies that require time to manifest, and voters often fail to recognize the potential benefits that haven't yet materialized.
There has been a significant increase in factory construction, but the majority of the associated jobs remain undeveloped. A Taiwanese manufacturer has begun producing chips for Apple phones within the U.S., although efforts to stimulate domestic semiconductor manufacturing are still in the nascent stages. Additionally, some clean energy initiatives are facing challenges.
These investments appear to be of little advantage to Biden, especially given his low approval ratings regarding the economy.
Consequently, Kamala Harris has made reducing costs a key focus of her presidential campaign, emphasizing policies that can deliver quick results: tax breaks for families and startups, down payment assistance, and penalties for grocery stores guilty of price gouging.
This emphasis on speed is a unifying theme among her proposals.
When I raised this observation with Harris' advisers, they generally agreed, stating it’s sensible to prioritize discussing policies that provide immediate benefits to people’s lives.
“If I’m not focused on bringing down your prices, you don’t want to hear step 2 or step 3,” a Harris adviser remarked.
There is a clear political rationale for this strategy, particularly during a period when unemployment is low at 4.1 percent: people are less concerned about job availability and more focused on their expenses. Rising prices dominate voters' perceptions of the economy, and they are seeking rapid solutions.
However, not all issues can be resolved quickly — nor should they be.
A robust labor market coupled with stable consumer spending implies that enhancing the capacity to produce goods and services may be more beneficial for long-term cost reduction than merely facilitating consumer spending.
Nevertheless, Biden and Harris have struggled to effectively promote their administration's long-term investments, and their efforts in this area have been underwhelming. Biden himself was not a particularly prominent figure during his now-concluded reelection campaign, and there is no substitute for the visibility that a presidential candidate commands.
“It’s a live experiment we’re running,” Jennifer Harris, a former aide in the Biden White House, commented. “We need to educate people about what they should expect if it goes as we think it will and make the case for both ambition and patience, and tout the early returns where we have them.”
While the vice president isn’t dismissing supply-side policies outright, she has indicated her intention to continue Biden's strategy of strategically bolstering certain sectors. The goal of building three million new homes is also prominently featured in her platform.
However, long-term structural objectives overall do not appear to be central to her campaign message.
It’s clear she is operating within a tight timeframe; she became the Democratic nominee just under three months ago. Yet, it is somewhat surprising that she does not emphasize more of the current administration's economic vision, which would likely carry on under her leadership should she win.
After all, she is collaborating with many of the same team members. Brian Deese, one of her top economic advisers, recently shared ambitious ideas on how the U.S. could expand global demand for American-produced clean energy technology as an avenue for accelerating the climate transition.
These are the types of initiatives that could be pursued in a Harris administration, yet she hasn’t sought a mandate from the public for them during her campaign.
There is a principled case to be made for keeping voters informed about what they are voting for. Additionally, there is a political argument: a stronger focus on manufacturing could enhance her appeal among working-class voters in crucial swing states.
Harris's advisors highlight her speech in Pittsburgh as evidence of her increasing emphasis on industrial policy, suggesting that the critique of her approach may be less warranted in light of those remarks, which included references to building the “industries of the future” as a crucial element of her Opportunity Economy framework.
However, her appeal to working-class voters still seems more narrowly defined and, again, focused on immediate relief, as seen in her proposals to eliminate degree requirements for federal jobs.
Voters can see a distinct contrast between the Biden-Harris administration’s industrial policies and former President Donald Trump’s approach, which frames tariffs as a comprehensive solution for American competitiveness, marketed as both a short-term and long-term answer.
Some Democrats perceive an opportunity to integrate a “build, build, build” ethos more prominently into the party's message for voters. When I asked Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz whether Harris's focus on housing reflects a broader shift within the party, which has often favored government aid in responding to national issues, he expressed enthusiastic agreement before I completed my question.
“Democrats have to be the party of building stuff,” he asserted. “If we want a clean energy future, and if we want economic prosperity, we’re going to have to embrace building, and we’re going to have to embrace doing things at scale and with speed. And if that’s a departure from normal Democratic Party politics, so be it.”
“Part of what I want to convey to voters is that they can have nice things,” he added. “We should not accept the premise that shortages are a way of life and we fight within a finite pie for the people who are most vulnerable. ... We don’t have to operate under the assumption that there’s never going to be enough of what we want.”
Nonetheless, there’s no assurance that the investments made by the government over the past four years will yield the results that Democrats are hoping for. Kate Judge, a Columbia Law professor, who signed a contract to write a book on the fragility of supply chains in January 2020 — unaware of how vividly the pandemic would highlight these issues — reflected on the potential efficacy of Biden’s policies. She offered both commendation and caution.
“The investments that have been made under the Biden administration should start to provide meaningful dividends in the coming administration,” she indicated. But “we don’t yet know what’s going to be successful and what’s going to be less successful.”
Still, she acknowledged that these investments represent worthwhile risks.
If they succeed, it’s likely that the next president will receive the accolades.
Ian Smith for TROIB News
However, his vice president isn’t prominently campaigning on these initiatives.
The reason? Primarily, these are policies that require time to manifest, and voters often fail to recognize the potential benefits that haven't yet materialized.
There has been a significant increase in factory construction, but the majority of the associated jobs remain undeveloped. A Taiwanese manufacturer has begun producing chips for Apple phones within the U.S., although efforts to stimulate domestic semiconductor manufacturing are still in the nascent stages. Additionally, some clean energy initiatives are facing challenges.
These investments appear to be of little advantage to Biden, especially given his low approval ratings regarding the economy.
Consequently, Kamala Harris has made reducing costs a key focus of her presidential campaign, emphasizing policies that can deliver quick results: tax breaks for families and startups, down payment assistance, and penalties for grocery stores guilty of price gouging.
This emphasis on speed is a unifying theme among her proposals.
When I raised this observation with Harris' advisers, they generally agreed, stating it’s sensible to prioritize discussing policies that provide immediate benefits to people’s lives.
“If I’m not focused on bringing down your prices, you don’t want to hear step 2 or step 3,” a Harris adviser remarked.
There is a clear political rationale for this strategy, particularly during a period when unemployment is low at 4.1 percent: people are less concerned about job availability and more focused on their expenses. Rising prices dominate voters' perceptions of the economy, and they are seeking rapid solutions.
However, not all issues can be resolved quickly — nor should they be.
A robust labor market coupled with stable consumer spending implies that enhancing the capacity to produce goods and services may be more beneficial for long-term cost reduction than merely facilitating consumer spending.
Nevertheless, Biden and Harris have struggled to effectively promote their administration's long-term investments, and their efforts in this area have been underwhelming. Biden himself was not a particularly prominent figure during his now-concluded reelection campaign, and there is no substitute for the visibility that a presidential candidate commands.
“It’s a live experiment we’re running,” Jennifer Harris, a former aide in the Biden White House, commented. “We need to educate people about what they should expect if it goes as we think it will and make the case for both ambition and patience, and tout the early returns where we have them.”
While the vice president isn’t dismissing supply-side policies outright, she has indicated her intention to continue Biden's strategy of strategically bolstering certain sectors. The goal of building three million new homes is also prominently featured in her platform.
However, long-term structural objectives overall do not appear to be central to her campaign message.
It’s clear she is operating within a tight timeframe; she became the Democratic nominee just under three months ago. Yet, it is somewhat surprising that she does not emphasize more of the current administration's economic vision, which would likely carry on under her leadership should she win.
After all, she is collaborating with many of the same team members. Brian Deese, one of her top economic advisers, recently shared ambitious ideas on how the U.S. could expand global demand for American-produced clean energy technology as an avenue for accelerating the climate transition.
These are the types of initiatives that could be pursued in a Harris administration, yet she hasn’t sought a mandate from the public for them during her campaign.
There is a principled case to be made for keeping voters informed about what they are voting for. Additionally, there is a political argument: a stronger focus on manufacturing could enhance her appeal among working-class voters in crucial swing states.
Harris's advisors highlight her speech in Pittsburgh as evidence of her increasing emphasis on industrial policy, suggesting that the critique of her approach may be less warranted in light of those remarks, which included references to building the “industries of the future” as a crucial element of her Opportunity Economy framework.
However, her appeal to working-class voters still seems more narrowly defined and, again, focused on immediate relief, as seen in her proposals to eliminate degree requirements for federal jobs.
Voters can see a distinct contrast between the Biden-Harris administration’s industrial policies and former President Donald Trump’s approach, which frames tariffs as a comprehensive solution for American competitiveness, marketed as both a short-term and long-term answer.
Some Democrats perceive an opportunity to integrate a “build, build, build” ethos more prominently into the party's message for voters. When I asked Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz whether Harris's focus on housing reflects a broader shift within the party, which has often favored government aid in responding to national issues, he expressed enthusiastic agreement before I completed my question.
“Democrats have to be the party of building stuff,” he asserted. “If we want a clean energy future, and if we want economic prosperity, we’re going to have to embrace building, and we’re going to have to embrace doing things at scale and with speed. And if that’s a departure from normal Democratic Party politics, so be it.”
“Part of what I want to convey to voters is that they can have nice things,” he added. “We should not accept the premise that shortages are a way of life and we fight within a finite pie for the people who are most vulnerable. ... We don’t have to operate under the assumption that there’s never going to be enough of what we want.”
Nonetheless, there’s no assurance that the investments made by the government over the past four years will yield the results that Democrats are hoping for. Kate Judge, a Columbia Law professor, who signed a contract to write a book on the fragility of supply chains in January 2020 — unaware of how vividly the pandemic would highlight these issues — reflected on the potential efficacy of Biden’s policies. She offered both commendation and caution.
“The investments that have been made under the Biden administration should start to provide meaningful dividends in the coming administration,” she indicated. But “we don’t yet know what’s going to be successful and what’s going to be less successful.”
Still, she acknowledged that these investments represent worthwhile risks.
If they succeed, it’s likely that the next president will receive the accolades.
Ian Smith for TROIB News
