Kamala Harris is carrying the torch and burden of Bidenomics | Mint

Spotting the difference in Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s economic views is no easy task: Both have spent the past three and a half years promoting similar ideas and touting similar accomplishments. But tell Ms. Harris this: She seems able to wrap her broad set of policies, from semiconductor subsidies to student-loan forgiveness, in more appealing packaging than her boss. Mr. Biden calls it his “Build Back Better” agenda, which has never been popular. The background behind Ms. Harris’ recent speeches on economics has displayed a more elegant phrase: “freedom to advance.”

Whether or not it becomes a slogan in her presidential campaign, people who have worked with Ms. Harris say it reflects her philosophy and her approach to economic policy. She will aim to expand Bidenomics rather than reinvent it. Mr. Biden completed half of his program with big investments in American infrastructure, manufacturing and green energy. Ms. Harris will continue that, which is now mostly in the implementation phase. But her main focus will be on the other half of his program, a social agenda that remains largely unfinished.

This includes more funding for kindergarten, higher pay for homecare workers and trying to ensure paid family leave for all. So it was no coincidence that the first two unions to endorse Ms Harris within hours of Mr Biden dropping out of the presidential race were the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union, which represents nurses, among others. Ms Harris has also been instrumental in getting the Biden administration to ease the burden of medical debt for Americans (through a rule that removes medical debt from personal credit scores), something she will likely pursue as president.

Jim Kessler of Third Way, a think-tank associated with centrist Democrats, believes her focus on social issues reflects her background as a California Democrat. “You see the incredible dynamism in the state’s economy, and then also the difficulties she creates for middle-class people on affordability issues,” he says. “You get a mix that’s very pro-capitalist, but also very pro-consumer, and you can see that with her.”

Her experience as California attorney general and the state’s top prosecutor also made her a believer in the power of regulation for the public good — a sharp contrast to Donald Trump’s desire to shrink the government’s footprint. In one major case, by taking on some of America’s biggest banks, she secured an $18 billion settlement for Californians affected by unfair mortgage foreclosures. “She’s very proud of that,” says Felicia Wong of the progressive advocacy group Roosevelt Forward. “It’s a one-two punch. She’ll promote workers’ rights and then also make sure that companies and the financial system don’t abuse them.”

This naturally raises the question of whether Ms. Harris stands with Mr. Biden on economics. Her platform for the 2020 Democratic primary certainly indicated she might do so. She initially campaigned for “Medicare for All,” a single health-insurance plan for all Americans that would involve much more government centralization than the smorgasbord of private and public options in the current system. She also proposed a full repeal of Mr. Trump’s tax cuts, passed in 2017, while Mr. Biden has called for maintaining low tax rates for people earning less than $400,000 a year, or about 98% of the population.

Still, drawing conclusions from the positions she adopted in 2020 can be misleading. At the time, she tried to position herself between the Democratic Party’s progressive wing and its mainstream middle, leading to attacks on her from both sides. The same divisions plagued her campaign team for the primaries, which was split between left-wing advisers and a more centrist group, including her sister Maya. In recent years she has gravitated toward the middle of the party. Her main advisers on economic policy include Mike Pyle and Dean Millison, both moderate voices. Ms. Harris has also embraced Mr. Biden’s softer stance on health care and taxes, though she has yet to clarify her plans for either. “There’s no real difference between her and the president,” says one former member of her team.

The fact that Kamalanomics looks so much like Bidenomics poses a huge risk to his candidacy, given how unpopular Bidenomics has proven. In poll after poll, a clear majority of Americans have given Mr Biden poor grades on the economy, their pessimism fuelled heavily by inflation. The same harsh judgement could easily apply to Ms Harris. Not only was she Mr Biden’s deputy, but she called for even bigger fiscal stimulus at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, which could have fuelled inflation. As it is, she emphasises the positives, particularly the creation of more than 15 million jobs during her and Mr Biden’s tenures.

Yet it underscores the challenge Ms. Harris now faces. She cannot deny Mr. Biden’s record on the economy, because she is so closely tied to it. But drawing attention to the administration’s successes and the economy’s strength may not work either. That’s what the White House has been trying to do for the past two years, to no avail. “Freedom to live a happy life” sounds nice, but like her boss, Ms. Harris may find it outweighs the American people’s freedom to complain.

© 2024, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. Original content can be found at www.economist.com.