PHOTO COURTESY OF SHEILA HAMILTON’S FACEBOOK PAGE

A woman holds a sign in support of Kamala Harris during a No Kings protest in Santa Barbara, California on June 14, 2025.

415 days into Donald Trump’s second presidential term has brought no shortage of split opinions. The most divisive figure in recent American history has continued to be so, but his approval ratings reflect a growing unfavorability across the nation on key issues from the economy to immigration. 

As could be expected, the recent surge in conversation around the president and his leadership have brought back discussion and musings around what could have been. With many declaring that if Kamala Harris had won the 2024 election, all of the problems we face would simply never have happened. While others maintain their position that Trump on his worst day remains a better leader than Harris could ever dream to be. 

And some, myself included, believe that even if Harris had won, many of the pressing issues facing the nation today would still be there, if somewhat muted under the glossy sheen of girl-power and the championing of diversity winning the day. 

If it’s a black woman ordering the bombs to be dropped, it helps lessen the sting a bit, right?

In all seriousness, the United States is in a precarious position. Currently at war with Iran at the will of our greatest ally to the tune of an alleged 2 billion dollars a day  and an economy with tanking job numbers and rising gas prices, citizens are, rightfully so, a bit concerned. 

But to dismiss these issues so flippantly by espousing that if Kamala were the president, we would be much better off, is both short sighted and frankly, a bit naive. 

On the war with Iran, Democrats have publicly gone as far as to raise concerns about the legality of the war while also doing little to condemn it or demand our withdrawal. 

Where Israel is concerned, the GOP and DNC remain largely agreed that the nation’s defense is an utmost priority for America and if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been in contact with President Harris instead of President Trump, it is not unlikely that the results would have been much the same as they have been thus far. 

On immigration, the militarization and excessive funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has drawn mass outrage and condemnation from Democrats, despite Harris’ own campaign platform on the issue being solely based upon reviving the failed 2024 bipartisan immigration bill that was torpedoed at the behest of Trump. 

While it is difficult to speculate what shape a Harris administration’s immigration platform would have materialized into, I find it likely that it would align with former President Obama’s: a mass deportation effort, but one that is not so publicly flaunted or celebrated. Similar results, but without the tyrannical imagery. 

This is the crux of the argument in favor of this alternate reality where Harris was our Commander in Chief. 

That history has shown time and again that Democratic presidents often differ from their Republican counterparts mainly on optics, rather than policy. 

Trump is a wrench in the machine, a horse loose in the hospital, impossible to ignore and unable to engage with any degree of tact or subtlety. 

Harris is a system player, an establishment figure, able to morph from one stance to the next like a chameleon, depending on what is called for in the moment, all the while championing faith in the systems that maintain the status quo and ensure no substantial change is ever really enacted. 

With Trump, there is chaos. With Harris, there likely would have been calm. 

But the idea that things would be so much better for everyday American citizens is, like her campaign, a nice idea lacking any actual substance. 

A Harris administration would have us at war with Iran, deporting hundreds of undocumented migrants daily, but it would be just quiet enough that we could all go to brunch in peace. 

But of course, that’s just one man’s opinion. 

Categories: Opinion