On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg addressed claims by Republicans that Kamala Harris has changed her position on a number of important issues.
Moderator Kristen Welker pointed out three major shifts from Harris’ presidential run that leave her vulnerable to accusations of flip-flopping: her positions on fracking, immigration policy, and Medicare for All.
Welker then asked Buttigieg, “If she’s elected, why won’t she change her mind again?”
The crux of Buttigieg’s answer: she’s changed her mind based on the available data.
“You develop your policies based on what you see happening in the world around you and what you’re able to accomplish in Washington. You take the example of immigration. We just talked through what’s changed over the last five years. We could say the same thing on climate. Lots of ideas were being kicked around five years ago, when there was basically zero climate policy during the Trump years. Now, we have a climate policy. It’s called the Inflation Reduction Act. It does not include a ban on fracking, because that’s not the Biden-Harris Administration’s policy.”
Later, Buttigieg said “She’s also a pragmatic person who knows that, you know, the reality of policy is that there’s a give and take around your core values, principles and goals in order to get things done.”
That’s a bit more folksy take on Harris’ changes than I’ve heard (in her famous August CNN interview, Harris took a vaguer “My values have not changed,” and didn’t really put meat on the bones of what that meant), and illustrates Buttigieg’s ease with both television interviews and the townhalls in Iowa that famously propelled his 2020 bid for president.
Buttigieg reinforced the notion that her values haven’t changed, but also added a touch that might resonate with swing voters: “She’s also a pragmatic person” and said it was necessary to have “a give and take around your core values… to get things done.”
That’s politics. Give and take to get things done. And most Americans know it, and the centrist, swing voters who decide general elections want pragmatism and less rigid ideology if it’s meant for the benefit of getting things done (unfortunately for Harris, more Americans currently see Donald Trump as centrist than Harris, according to a recent NYT survey).
During the remainder of his appearance on Meet the Press, Buttigieg didn’t go much further into Harris’ shifting positions, but his slight changes of wording show how skilled a communicator (and potential 2028) candidate he is.
Now a couple things.
As to fracking. There’s an idea that as fracking goes, so goes Pennsylvanians’ choice for the election, but what does polling say?
Unfortunately, not a ton.
The crosstabs of the most recent polls don’t give breakdowns on how important fracking is among likely Pennsylvania voters, which seems an important omission in a state where it’s commonly seen as a make-or-break issue in a make-or-break electoral state (the most likely tipping point state, according to Nate Silver, followed by North Carolina).
The most recent survey on fracking (from 2022) shows 48% of Pennsylvanians supporting it, while 44% oppose it, and there are actually quite heated fractures within PA that reflect some cognitive dissonance. 86% said fracking was important to the state’s economy, but nearly 66% were worried that it put water resources at risk, thanks to spills and well issues.
(And as the New York Times’ Rebecca Elliott reports in a terrific deep-dive, southwestern Pennsylvania is currently facing a dilemma that’s more nuanced than a simple “fracking good/fracking bad” — namely, pricing and how to drive it up in order to access more lucrative markets in the northeastern states.
Therefore, it’s possible that fracking itself is less a particular issue than the symbolism behind it – that Harris a) changes her positions to suit the political winds and b) is more liberal than she’s presenting herself).
But there’s also an Occam’s Razor to all this – if fracking didn’t post a risk to her candidacy, why change her position at all? Why not just stick with the “no fracking” thing? And Josh Shapiro’s middle-ground approach to fracking was one of his key selling points as a Veep candidate. Shapiro has supported it, while calling for prosecution of the problems associated with it. That’s a balance that resonates with voters there, according to one of the state’s most respected pollsters, Christopher Borick.
As for Medicare For All, Axios notes that even the Congressional Progressive Caucus excluded mention of it in its policy agenda for 2025, signaling that progressives themselves know it’s a losing issue right now.
That’s why Welker zeroed in on immigration, fracking, and Medicare for All as substantial shifts in Harris’ policy. Those are the changes of position that pose the biggest challenge for her candidacy.
As for Buttigieg, his rhetorical modification of Harris’ “my values haven’t changed” explanation shows his political skill and exactly why he’s still someone who’ll play a role in a 2028 race.
But there’s still the South Carolina dilemma.
Here’s video of Buttigieg’s full interview on Meet the Press:
[Photo: Public Domain]