Why Harris Is Silent on Biden's Achievements
The Democratic nominee is largely avoiding a focus on the Biden administration’s more significant and slower-moving policies during their campaign.
TroibNews 
During his first term, President Joe Biden initiated a significant experiment aimed at enhancing American manufacturing, promoting green energy, and strengthening the economy against disruptions.
However, his vice president isn't centering her campaign around these policies.
The reason is that these measures require time to show results, and voters tend to overlook the benefits of actions that have yet to materialize. While factory construction has experienced a surge in investment, most potential jobs are not available yet. A Taiwanese manufacturer has begun producing chips for Apple phones in the U.S., but stimulating domestic semiconductor production is still in its infancy. Additionally, some clean energy initiatives have faced challenges.
These investments don’t appear to be favoring Biden much, as reflected in his low approval ratings related to the economy.
Consequently, Kamala Harris has prioritized lowering costs in her presidential campaign, emphasizing initiatives that seem likely to bring immediate benefits: tax breaks for families and startups, down payment assistance, and penalties for grocery stores accused of price gouging.
This emphasis on quick solutions ties her policies together.
When I raised this point with Harris’ advisors, they largely agreed, noting that highlighting policies that clearly show how people’s lives can improve makes sense.
“If I’m not focused on bringing down your prices, you don’t want to hear step 2 or step 3,” one adviser stated.
The political reasoning behind this strategy is evident, particularly with the unemployment rate sitting at a low 4.1 percent: citizens are less concerned with job creation and more focused on rising costs. The high prices are at the forefront of voters’ economic concerns, and they are seeking rapid solutions.
However, not every issue can be resolved quickly – nor should it be. An economy thriving with a strong labor market and steady consumer expenditure indicates that improving our capacity to manufacture goods and supply services can often be a more effective long-term strategy for reducing costs than simply facilitating spending.
Nonetheless, Biden and Harris have struggled to convincingly promote their administration's long-term investments, and their efforts in this regard can appear lackluster. Biden himself was not an especially prominent figure during his previous campaign for reelection, and there is no substitute for the platform a presidential candidate holds.
“It’s a live experiment we’re running,” Jennifer Harris, a former aide in the Biden White House, remarked. “We need to educate people on 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 Harris is not ignoring supply-side policies altogether; she has expressed intentions to continue Biden’s initiatives to bolster specific sectors. A key element of her platform is the promise to construct three million new homes.
However, her campaign does not heavily emphasize long-term structural goals.
Admittedly, she is operating within a tight timeframe; she became the Democratic candidate less than three months ago. Still, it seems unusual not to discuss more about a crucial aspect of the current administration’s economic strategy, which would likely continue under her leadership if she is elected.
After all, she works with many of the same individuals. For example, Brian Deese, one of her top economic advisors, has recently proposed an ambitious plan for increasing global demand for American-made clean energy technologies to expedite the climate transition.
These are the types of proposals that could emerge under a Harris administration; however, she is not currently seeking public support for them during her campaign.
There is a reasonable argument to be made that voters should understand what they are endorsing. Furthermore, there is a political advantage to a greater emphasis on manufacturing, particularly in gaining favor with working-class voters in swing states.
Harris' advisers point to her speech in Pittsburgh as evidence that she is beginning to engage more with industrial policy, telling me that my critique is less valid following her comments, where she identified building the “industries of the future” as a foundational element of her Opportunity Economy.
Nevertheless, her appeal to working-class voters still seems to be more narrowly focused — and again, emphasizes immediacy: exemplified by proposals such as eliminating degree requirements for federal jobs.
For voters, the industrial policies from the Biden-Harris administration provide a noteworthy contrast to those of former President Donald Trump, who has positioned tariffs as a comprehensive solution for American competitiveness. He promotes them as both short-term and long-term fixes.
Some Democrats see an opportunity to more prominently incorporate the theme of "build, build, build" into the party’s narrative. I recently asked Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz if he believed that Harris’s campaign focus on the necessity for increased housing signified a broader shift in the party, which has typically leaned towards governmental aid as a response to societal challenges.
His enthusiasm was palpable, prompting him to respond before I completed my question.
“Democrats have to be the party of building stuff,” he said. “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 continued. “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.”
Of course, there is no certainty that the investments made during the past four years will yield the expected results for Democrats. I asked Kate Judge, a Columbia Law professor who has contracted to write a book examining the fragility of supply chains since January 2020, how effective she thought Biden’s policies would be. She offered both acknowledgment and caution.
“The investments that have been made under the Biden administration should start to provide meaningful dividends in the coming administration,” she noted. However, “we don’t yet know what’s going to be successful and what’s going to be less successful.”
Still, she emphasized that these investments are worth the risks.
And if they do succeed, the incoming president is likely to reap the credit.
Ramin Sohrabi contributed to this report for TROIB News
However, his vice president isn't centering her campaign around these policies.
The reason is that these measures require time to show results, and voters tend to overlook the benefits of actions that have yet to materialize. While factory construction has experienced a surge in investment, most potential jobs are not available yet. A Taiwanese manufacturer has begun producing chips for Apple phones in the U.S., but stimulating domestic semiconductor production is still in its infancy. Additionally, some clean energy initiatives have faced challenges.
These investments don’t appear to be favoring Biden much, as reflected in his low approval ratings related to the economy.
Consequently, Kamala Harris has prioritized lowering costs in her presidential campaign, emphasizing initiatives that seem likely to bring immediate benefits: tax breaks for families and startups, down payment assistance, and penalties for grocery stores accused of price gouging.
This emphasis on quick solutions ties her policies together.
When I raised this point with Harris’ advisors, they largely agreed, noting that highlighting policies that clearly show how people’s lives can improve makes sense.
“If I’m not focused on bringing down your prices, you don’t want to hear step 2 or step 3,” one adviser stated.
The political reasoning behind this strategy is evident, particularly with the unemployment rate sitting at a low 4.1 percent: citizens are less concerned with job creation and more focused on rising costs. The high prices are at the forefront of voters’ economic concerns, and they are seeking rapid solutions.
However, not every issue can be resolved quickly – nor should it be. An economy thriving with a strong labor market and steady consumer expenditure indicates that improving our capacity to manufacture goods and supply services can often be a more effective long-term strategy for reducing costs than simply facilitating spending.
Nonetheless, Biden and Harris have struggled to convincingly promote their administration's long-term investments, and their efforts in this regard can appear lackluster. Biden himself was not an especially prominent figure during his previous campaign for reelection, and there is no substitute for the platform a presidential candidate holds.
“It’s a live experiment we’re running,” Jennifer Harris, a former aide in the Biden White House, remarked. “We need to educate people on 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 Harris is not ignoring supply-side policies altogether; she has expressed intentions to continue Biden’s initiatives to bolster specific sectors. A key element of her platform is the promise to construct three million new homes.
However, her campaign does not heavily emphasize long-term structural goals.
Admittedly, she is operating within a tight timeframe; she became the Democratic candidate less than three months ago. Still, it seems unusual not to discuss more about a crucial aspect of the current administration’s economic strategy, which would likely continue under her leadership if she is elected.
After all, she works with many of the same individuals. For example, Brian Deese, one of her top economic advisors, has recently proposed an ambitious plan for increasing global demand for American-made clean energy technologies to expedite the climate transition.
These are the types of proposals that could emerge under a Harris administration; however, she is not currently seeking public support for them during her campaign.
There is a reasonable argument to be made that voters should understand what they are endorsing. Furthermore, there is a political advantage to a greater emphasis on manufacturing, particularly in gaining favor with working-class voters in swing states.
Harris' advisers point to her speech in Pittsburgh as evidence that she is beginning to engage more with industrial policy, telling me that my critique is less valid following her comments, where she identified building the “industries of the future” as a foundational element of her Opportunity Economy.
Nevertheless, her appeal to working-class voters still seems to be more narrowly focused — and again, emphasizes immediacy: exemplified by proposals such as eliminating degree requirements for federal jobs.
For voters, the industrial policies from the Biden-Harris administration provide a noteworthy contrast to those of former President Donald Trump, who has positioned tariffs as a comprehensive solution for American competitiveness. He promotes them as both short-term and long-term fixes.
Some Democrats see an opportunity to more prominently incorporate the theme of "build, build, build" into the party’s narrative. I recently asked Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz if he believed that Harris’s campaign focus on the necessity for increased housing signified a broader shift in the party, which has typically leaned towards governmental aid as a response to societal challenges.
His enthusiasm was palpable, prompting him to respond before I completed my question.
“Democrats have to be the party of building stuff,” he said. “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 continued. “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.”
Of course, there is no certainty that the investments made during the past four years will yield the expected results for Democrats. I asked Kate Judge, a Columbia Law professor who has contracted to write a book examining the fragility of supply chains since January 2020, how effective she thought Biden’s policies would be. She offered both acknowledgment and caution.
“The investments that have been made under the Biden administration should start to provide meaningful dividends in the coming administration,” she noted. However, “we don’t yet know what’s going to be successful and what’s going to be less successful.”
Still, she emphasized that these investments are worth the risks.
And if they do succeed, the incoming president is likely to reap the credit.
Ramin Sohrabi contributed to this report for TROIB News
