The background and various assumed identities of the Democratic presidential nominee raise obvious questions and doubts about her sincerity even as they exacerbate growing divides in America and accelerate our dissolution.   

Kamala Harris and her campaign staff have constructed a  fictional candidate. It is the epitome of the vanity and entitlement practiced by elites. They have attempted to transform a wealthy, career-centric, San Francisco progressive into a typical American. Relatable traits have been grafted onto her. A personal narrative has been adapted to resemble experiences of the constituency.

The “transformation” is a reckless exhibition of faux assimilation. Democrats sacrifice accuracy, genuineness, reality, substance, and truths for ambiguity, distortions, exaggerations, and falsehoods. Ideas are bastardized. Words are abused and stripped of meaning. Identities are hollowed out.

Witness the descriptions of Harris’s personal life. It is utterly fictionalized.

The adult children of Harris’s husband coined the term “Momala” to describe her place in their lives. The term is obnoxiously fake. It celebrates her role as a-mom figure, although attributing  to Harris the identity of a caring stepmother is a stretch. One child had left the house before their father married Harris while the other was halfway through high school. Harris promotes the manufactured title quite shamelessly During a CNN Town Hall the vice president alluded to her “parenting experience” to demonstrate that she makes many mistakes, like the rest of us. Note her words: “you know, if you’ve ever parented a child, you know you make lots of mistakes.” How does she know? Are we expected to believe that Harris has and continues to play an intimate role in parenting her husband’s grown children?

The usage of “Momala” illustrates the manufacturing of familial links by the Harris campaign. The vice president covers friends with the veneer of family. Her relationship with the ex-wife of her husband is evidence of a “blended family.” A daycare provider from Berkeley is considered a “second mother.” Who is not considered a parent or family member in the Harris narrative?

The vice president also gives herself a bogus Christian identity. She embraces a fake Christianity that is time and place sensitive but averse to any politically incorrect doctrine.   

At moments on the campaign trail, the former California attorney general speaks to congregations from a pulpit. She discussed the merits of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Another time she referenced the writings of the Apostle Paul.  She defines Christianity as a verb, once stating: “we must live it and show it, in action.”  

At other moments, Harris effectively marginalizes, nullifies, or shuns any association with Christianity. She told rally attendees that their “Jesus is Lord!” shouts are unwelcome. The vice president declined an invitation by the Cardinal of New York City for the traditional Alfred E. Smith Dinner. Instead of attending, she provided a brief video where an actress, not the VP, did most of the talking. During an interview with NBC, Harris stated an unwillingness to provide exemptions to religious healthcare providers (mostly Christian) for abortion.   

Besides the immediate questions these examples raise about who Kamala Harris is and what she represents; her behavior and words amplify a destructive trend practiced by most elites.

Harris and her handlers provide prominent examples of how elites manipulate fundamental ideas, identities, and institutions. They redefine or temporarily inhabit them for personal gain to the detriment of the rest of society. Their actions and rhetoric slowly render ideas, identities, and institutions obsolete, sterile, or meaningless. They engage in this manipulation with an indifference or disregard to the impact or message it sends to large segments of the population.

By redefining the family, the vice president cheapens  its role and value in America. Her prominent status as the Democratic presidential nominee provides credence and popularity to her alternatives. She advertises to large segments of the public that less genuine but more woke identities can be pursued in place of traditional relationships and beliefs.

As the nuclear family is already under attack, the prominence of Harris and her ideas add to the problem. She actively diminishes a fundamental element for a healthy functioning society. Moreover, alternatives to the nuclear family do not suffice for most Americans, particularly non-elites. Why? Unmentioned in these elite exercises of redefining is money, time, and resources.

Harris is the child of professionals. She and her husband reside in an exclusive Los Angeles neighborhood. Finances, opportunity, and knowledge allow elites to gloss over or mitigate the fallout created by family dissolution. It enables “second mothers,” and pays the psychiatrists or therapists to manage the “blended family.” But most people cannot afford to insulate themselves from the consequences of living a life untethered by the natural definitions of these institutions.

The harm Harris inflicts on society is also evinced in her manipulation of Christianity.

To moderate her image and obfuscate her progressive secularism, Harris defines and promotes a Christianity that is seemingly sterile. She achieves it by marginalizing its presence and removing its substance.  

The vice president compartmentalizes Christianity. Her behavior and words demonstrate that Christianity should be reduced to exist only on the inside of a church and inside the individual. Any outward manifestations or influence of the faith beyond those spaces must be minimized. Harris tells us this. In public spaces she has repeatedly been hostile to explicit Christian beliefs and expressions and demands that the faith warrants no special status in American society.

For Harris, societal expressions of Christianity should be limited to “kind gestures.” Note that when the vice president has chosen to speak about Christianity, she focuses on the Parable of the Good Samaritan and claims her Christianity is a verb. Christianity is reduced to the soup kitchen, the feel-good act of community service, or giving money to a beggar. 

Harris is presenting a Christianity that lacks substance. The “kind acts” are bereft of fundamental doctrines or beliefs. It is impotent. In this form, Christianity is incapable of informing discussions about the mores of America because she has effectively hollowed it out. Her Christianity stands for little more than a vibe.   

Harris’s words and intentions are representative of many elites. They see little value in the faith except to curry favor or support. Most would prefer the removal of any social presence of Christianity. Like with the dissolution and absence of the family, they can manage despite its sterilization or disappearance. It does not define them.

For substantial portions of the population, however, Christianity holds real and practical significance. It is an identity. It informs behavior. It facilitates community and order. It establishes and maintains traditions that strengthen bonds. Without these elements, social cohesion devolves and diminishes for non-elites. Community membership becomes meaningless. Dislocation ensues. We already witness this throughout much of the country, Harris’s words and intentions compound it.  

The vice president and her campaign reserve the right to create and promote a compelling candidate for the office of the presidency. They are also obliged to do it in a responsible and constructive manner. Like many contemporary elites, they have devalued, trampled upon, and sterilized identities, ideas, and institutions fundamental to America. Kamala Harris’s contrived candidacy is corrosive for American society.