During her first interview as a Presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris said that although her positions on key issues have changed, her values have not changed. That is inconsistent. Either her change in positions reflect a change in values, or she is being less than truthful with the American voters.

Personal values are defined as “broad desirable goals that motivate people’s actions and serve as guiding principles in their lives.”

Concerning the environment generally and climate change specifically, Harris’ values centered around reducing carbon emissions. As such, she said she would like to end the use of gasoline-powered cars. She favored an electric vehicle mandate, which would lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. That meant she would ban fracking, as she said in 2019.

While a politician in California, her principles and values were consistent with that position.. Now she senses that most Americans do not agree with her, and since she is running for President, she has changed her views. She says she no longer supports an EV mandate. Nor does she favor banning fracking.

That is not just a change in a position, but it represents a clear change in values — or is simply a misrepresentation. Apparently, she does not value reducing carbon admissions, as she once did.

Historically, Harris’ values indicated that she believes the gun violence in the country is due to too many people owning guns. Although the constitution guarantees that Americans have the “right to bear arms,” she wants Americans to not own guns.

To get the guns out of the hands of all Americans, she favored a mandatory gun buyback, where citizens are forced to sell their guns to the federal government. Most Americans believe this program would result in almost no guns being owned by the American public. But criminals can find ways to buy guns on the black market.

That means average citizens would not be able to defend themselves. That is a wildly unpopular position. Harris said she changed her position and now does not favor a mandatory gun buyback. That means not only has her position changed, but her values have changed, since she no longer values the principle of having most Americans not own guns.

Or is that another misrepresentation?

Historically, Harris favors a government-controlled healthcare system. She has said in the past that she wants to eliminate private health insurance. Today about 61% of Americans have private health insurance. And although most are not happy about the cost, they are generally satisfied with the quality of their healthcare plans.

With Harris’ single payer, government-controlled healthcare system, competition would be eliminated, and the profit motive would disappear. Harris’s values say that this is a good thing.

The American public realizes that without competition and the profit motive, there is no incentive for the government to reduce cost. Competitive, profit-oriented enterprises always try to produce at the lowest possible cost.

In countries which have implemented national health insurance, the result is almost always lower-quality care, higher taxes and no immediate access to many specialties. Americans do not want his.

Harris has recently changed her position and her values. She no longer values a socialized health care system, simply because the voters will not elect her if she clings to those principles.

Considering the immigration problem, Harris has often said that our border is secure, and she does not favor building a wall along our southern border. She says she values all humans, and none are illegal.

She followed her principles for the last nearly four years. She was even put in charge of immigration by President Biden. The result was more than 10 million illegals entered the country. Because of a Biden executive order in mid-2024, the flow has been reduced. Still, she did not support building a wall.

Now she apparently believes that a wall should be built to secure the border.

As presidential candidate, Harris’s changed positions most certainly reflect her changed values.

The problem with Harris’ changed positions as a candidate is that she may change her views back to her historical positions if elected president. That would mean that Harris is telling the truth today when she says her values have not changed, but her positions can be flexible because she must say so to be elected.

If her values have not changed, then if elected, she will revert to her historical position. Then the American public will have been duped. Again.

_______________
Michael Busler is a public policy analyst and a professor of finance at Stockton University in Galloway, New Jersey, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in finance and economics. He has written op-ed columns in major newspapers for more than 35 years.