Published October 22, 2024
Of course, Kamala Harris didn’t plagiarize parts of her 2009 book, Smart on Crime. After all, she didn’t write it. Like nearly every other politician, she used a ghostwriter. So why, when conservative activist Christopher Rufo revealed that sections of the book were plagiarized, did Vice President Harris and her allies try to obfuscate rather than just throw the ghostwriter under the bus?
The likely answer is that admitting that Harris didn’t write her book would confirm voters’ impressions that she is lazy and inauthentic—the ultimate empty suit. After all, Harris is only the nominee because she was next in line when President Joe Biden’s incapacity became too much of an electoral hazard.
Harris is an avatar for an unpopular, failing liberal regime suffering from a crisis of legitimacy, which is why the main argument for supporting her is negative: She is not Donald Trump. But, though the former president’s unpopularity when paired with the Democratic political and media machine might be enough to hand her victory, that will not end liberalism’s legitimation crisis.
Click here to continue reading.
Nathanael Blake, Ph.D. is a Fellow in the Life and Family Initiative at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His research interests include American political theory, Christian political thought, and the intersection of natural law and philosophical hermeneutics. His published scholarship has included work on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Russell Kirk and J.R.R. Tolkien.
