OPINION on The Crime Policy of Kamala Harris:
The Inconvenient Truth of Policy: Why California’s Reversal Exposes a Deeper Problem
Let's talk POLICY for a minute and not talk 'He's a Racist'.
When Kamala Harris was AG of California, as a George Soros AG #1, she wrote Proposition 47. That allowed the smash and grab robberies up to $950. It went bad. So when Kamala Harris was on the ballot to be President in 2024 California voters passed Proposition 36 THAT CANCELLED THAT BULLS***!!! Democrats cannot connect DOTS to save their lives!!! Not only that, SHE IS A LEADING CANDIDATE TO HE THE NEXT GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.
DEMOCRAT VOTERS ARE STUPID!!!
The Story
The facts are straightforward. As California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris was indeed the named author of Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot measure that reclassified non-violent property crimes, reducing penalties and raising the threshold for felony theft to $950. The consequences have been catastrophic. Retailers across California have been forced to lock up everyday items behind plexiglass. Drugstores have closed entire locations due to rampant shoplifting. Law-abiding citizens watch in disbelief as organized retail theft rings operate with near-impunity, treating stores like self-service warehouses because the legal system has effectively decriminalized their behavior.
And here is where the policy conversation becomes genuinely instructive. In November 2024, California voters by a resounding margin passed Proposition 36, which rolled back the worst excesses of Proposition 47. They increased penalties for repeat offenders and reclassified certain thefts as felonies. The people of California looked at the results of progressive criminal justice “reform” and said, loudly and clearly, “This isn’t working.”
Now, pause and consider what this means for Kamala Harris’s political future. She is reportedly considering a run for governor of the very state whose voters just repudiated her signature policy achievement. This isn’t merely irony; it’s a fundamental disconnect between progressive governance and electoral accountability.
The post’s conclusion that Democrat voters are “stupid” is admittedly harsh and rhetorically counterproductive. But the sentiment behind it speaks to a genuine conservative frustration: the inability or unwillingness of progressive voters to connect policy outcomes with policy choices. Californians saw their communities deteriorate. They watched homelessness explode, drug use proliferate on public streets, and property crime surge. And when given the opportunity to reverse course, they did exactly that. Yet many of those same voters will likely support the very architect of the failed policy in her next political endeavor.
This isn’t about intelligence. It’s about something more troubling: the triumph of tribal loyalty over policy evaluation. Progressive voters are asked to support candidates based on identity, representation, and emotional resonance rather than the measurable results of their governance. They’re told that Harris’s ascent to Attorney General and Vice President represents historic “firsts” worth celebrating, while her actual record as a prosecutor from opposing death penalty reform to defending wrongful convictions is conveniently memory-holed.
The conservative lesson here is twofold. First, policies have consequences that transcend good intentions. Proposition 47 was sold as criminal justice reform, as a compassionate alternative to mass incarceration. But compassion directed at criminals inevitably becomes cruelty directed at law-abiding citizens, particularly in working-class and minority communities most affected by crime. The mom-and-pop shop owner watching their livelihood vanish to organized theft rings doesn’t care about the “root causes” of crime in that moment; they care about whether the law protects them.
Second, accountability matters. When California voters passed Proposition 36, they held themselves accountable by admitting their previous error. But will they hold their political leaders accountable? Will Kamala Harris face electoral consequences for championing a policy her own constituents later rejected? History suggests otherwise. Progressive politicians enjoy remarkable insulation from the consequences of their failures because their supporters have been conditioned to vote based on identity and cultural alignment rather than policy effectiveness.
The Harris gubernatorial prospects, should they materialize, will test this proposition. Can a candidate whose flagship policy was repudiated by voters win those same voters’ support for higher office? In a rational political world, the answer would be no. But we no longer inhabit a rational political world. We inhabit one where policy takes a backseat to personality, where results matter less than representation.
For conservatives, this is both frustrating and instructive. It reminds us that our task is not merely to advocate for better policies, but to rebuild a political culture that values outcomes over optics, effectiveness over identity, and accountability over loyalty. Until voters across the spectrum demand that their leaders answer for the consequences of their governance, we will continue to see the same failed policies repackaged and resold to an electorate that seems determined to forget.
Let’s talk policy. But let’s also talk about why policy seems to matter so much less than it should.
#KamalaHarris #Harris #California #Crime