I & I Editorial BoardWhen The Economist tried last week to excuse Kamala Harris’ frequent discharges of incoherent nonsense, it opened a door that Harris and her team probably wish would stay hidden from the wider public.
But there it is.
“Republicans who have mocked Ms. Harris for word-salad speeches will find precedent in her father’s writing,” The Economist said last week, because his is “sprinkled with obscurantist theorizing.”
And who is Harris’ father?
Donald, an 85-year-old, Jamaican-born economist who “is still a Marxist.”
Shouldn’t this have stirred some skepticism long before she was even a U.S. senator? Not in Democratic circles. A New Yorker story published one day later said that “Harris should tell her family’s story,” which includes being the daughter of “a renowned Marxist economist from Jamaica who taught at Stanford University for decades.”
Harris’ mother, Shyamala, Harris’ “biggest influence,” also had revolutionary connections. She was mentioned as a friend “who helped formulate the ideas,” says Harpers Bazaar, for Cedric Robinson’s “Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition.”
If these media outlets can’t be bothered to explain why Marxism should be shunned, or wish not to because it would reflect poorly on wrong people, then allow us to fill that void.
Marxism is driven by greed and envy. It feeds sloth and anger. Marxism is not just incompatible with liberty, it is an enemy of freedom. Individuals are servants to the collective, which is governed by dictators and politburos.
Even in its diluted-for-widespread-consumption form called socialism (or democratic socialism or soft socialism), Marxism is synonymous with bloody revolutions that enslaved rather than liberated, and built regimes that have murdered more than 168 million over 87 years of the 20th century.
In a mixed system such as ours, which loses ground almost every day to communist theory, Marxism ideology, no matter how it’s dressed up, rejects property rights; chokes economic growth; divides people instead of producing a classless society; corrupts institutions; creates, rather than abolishes, and empowers a debased ruling class; and goads its adherents to “democratize” – that is, to take over, seize in the name of the people – business and industry.
In practice, and in every case, the principles of Marxism undermine the only organizational structure that has allowed the masses to escape grinding poverty – capitalism.
Without giving her economic positions a label, Harris, who has spoken appreciatively of the impact her parents had on her, is definitively, though not necessarily nominally, a Marxist. She insists that public policy objectives have “to be about” ensuring that everybody ends “up in the same place.” She favors “equitable distribution” and “giving resources based on equity.”
“If you understand that not everybody started out in the same place, you understand some people need more … so we all end up in the same place.”
How is this different than the socialist creed “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” that Karl Marx popularized?
Harris wouldn’t be the first president to have Marxist in her coconut tree, and to have been shaped by their relative’s ideology. Both Barack Obama Sr. and Frank Marshall Davis, according to some the real father of Barack Obama, were communists. Their input on his life explains why the younger Obama was “a revolutionary Marxist” in college who had to remake himself to fool voters enough to win both a state Senate and U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, and the presidency – twice – where he mimicked “some of Lenin’s policy strategies” and also “adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy,” says economics professor Mark Hendrickson.
While we know of no instance in which Harris repudiated the Marxism of her parents, we’re not warning readers that she will become a Marxist dictator. But she does have an authoritarian streak. Harris recently said that if Congress doesn’t submit to her agenda during her first 100 days in office, “I’m going to take executive action” – another pen and phone president who believes their ideas are so important that they can make law themselves. It’s also clear that she wants an obedient Supreme Court, one that would not challenge her executive orders. If it does, then she would likely follow the path of her boss and ignore the Court, and then brag about it.
In 2024 it’s not unreasonable to believe that many if not most of those who vote Democrat are not disturbed by Harris’ Marxist links. In fact, we can confidently say that a significant portion of her supporters finds them appealing. It’s not large enough to fundamentally transform the country into the United Soviet States of America. But it is an influential faction that would gain power if Harris were elected.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Support Independent Journalism
Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists from the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.
We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left.
We are 100% reader supported!!
If you like what you see, please feel free to donate.
And be sure to tell your friends!
LEFT = THEFT
If nothing else, these two atrocious clowns illustrate we need to (a) severely tighten up residency and ancestry requirements for officeholders and (b) do something about regime media that is nothing but lies from one side to the other. The idea that either of these morons could be seriously considered for the White House speaks to the profound degree to which the American people have been corrupted.
I would challenge the assumption that ancestry has much to do with candidate quality. And what do you mean by “regime media”? Yes, one of the candidates is known for non-stop lying and owns a media company, but he’s not currently in power.
It seems that the retarded US voters don’t care.
We should look at what the candidates have done themselves, not what their parents were. For example, Trump’s father was a racist creep with no scruples when it came to avoiding taxes and helping his barely literate moron son get into college and avoid the draft. But should that affect anyone’s political choices?
The article tries to answer the “Trump = Hitler” narrative with a “Harris = Stalin” one. But the reason the Trump story has legs is we can actually point to many examples of Trump disrespecting democratic processes and institutions, encouraging political violence, bashing various minorities, the press, scientists, and politicians who don’t show absolute loyalty to himself, abusing the levers of government to maximize his own advantage, and practicing a foreign policy of pure national egoism. Now where are the examples of Harris being a Marxist? She wants the tax rates to be what they were before 2018?