Which Kamala Harris is in the race for president? And which Democratic ideology is she representing?

Democrats want the public to see Vice President Harris as a tough-on-crime prosecutor, while Republicans argue she is a “pro-crime” progressive who has supported defunding the police.

The reality is, both perspectives have some truth. Harris began her career as a crime-fighting prosecutor but later rebranded herself as a progressive to garner support from her party’s left wing. Now she appears to be staying mute to sidestep potential backlash. However, the deeper issue is not merely Harris’s shift – it’s the transformation of the Democratic Party itself.

The straightforward assertions Harris made during her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney are no longer acceptable within today’s Democratic Party, which has become polarized on issues surrounding crime. Democrats would benefit from revisiting Harris’s 2009 book for guidance on sensible approaches to crime.

Harris wasn’t initially a ‘progressive prosecutor’

The assertion that Harris has always been a far-left figure on crime is not accurate. Upon being elected San Francisco’s district attorney in 2003, her stance was relatively moderate, advocating for a blend of strong prosecution and social initiatives aimed at crime prevention.

In her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime,” Harris emphasized the need for “more police officers on the street, deployed more effectively.” She criticized what she described as “the partisan liberal argument  that police are an unwelcome occupying force in low-income neighborhoods.”

Harris accurately noted that residents in disadvantaged and minority communities often greatly desire police presence. The idea of moving towards less policing or eliminating police entirely would have horrified the Harris of 2009.

She stated: “To refrain from deploying police based on the assumption they are not needed or due to concerns about fairness towards the community in dealing with offenders contradicts the core principles of democracy.  Every community deserves and has the right to law enforcement. Law enforcement must investigate and pursue all crimes to ensure safety on the streets.”

Although she consistently opposed the death penalty, her actions as San Francisco DA were far from progressive. She took a strong stance against drug courts that appeared lenient towards drug dealers, insisted on punishing thieves regardless of their reasoning, and advocated for higher bail levels to keep dangerous offenders incarcerated and to combat gun violence.

The 2009 Harris demonstrated, in her own words, a “desire to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law.”

But change came to both the Democratic Party and Harris.

Following the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2014, progressive circles began to turn against law enforcement. Suddenly, police began to be viewed as oppressive, the prison system was deemed unjust, and law enforcement actions were labeled as racially biased. The left-wing faction of the Democratic Party overlooked the principles Harris outlined in her book: that police should not be viewed as occupiers and that, while reform is essential, communities plagued by high crime require more police presence, not the opposite.

It seems Harris may have forgotten her own writings as well.

When she initially ran for president in 2019, she catered to progressive sentiments to secure votes. She adopted the label of “progressive prosecutor” and criticized Joe Biden for his tough-on-crime stance. She perpetuated the claim about Michael Brown’s death, despite a contrary investigation by the Justice Department, and she targeted “systemic racism” within the justice system, trying to promote various policies aimed at reducing criminal sentences.

Ironically, despite this strategic change, her past record was still considered too conservative for progressive voters. During a Democratic debate, then-Rep. Tulsi Gabbard famously challenged Harris on her history of prosecuting drug offenders and keeping criminals incarcerated.

As the Democratic stance on crime shifted left, so did Harris

After the unrest that followed George Floyd’s death in 2020, many progressives pushed for de-policing initiatives. Democratic leaders observed from the sidelines.

Harris was involved in raising bail funds for protesters during the Minneapolis chaos and commended Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for cutting $150 million from the police budget. Over 20 cities decided to reduce police funding. Consequently, crime rates increased.

Once the severe repercussions became evident, Democratic leaders rushed to distance themselves from the “Defund the Police” slogan, but their messaging remains muddled and unclear. The Democratic Party finds itself torn between sensible moderates advocating for law enforcement and radical progressives focused on defunding police and closing prisons. As it stands, Democrats are still avoiding a firm stance on the issue to evade backlash.

There is an internal conflict within the Democratic Party, and Vice President Harris is part of that struggle.

Which version of Harris is campaigning for the presidency? Is it the Harris from 2009 who stated that “serious and violent criminals need to be locked up,” or the 2019 Harris who focused on freeing serious offenders? Is it the 2009 Harris advocating for increased police presence, or the 2020 Harris who supported de-policing initiatives? The answer remains unclear because she has not openly clarified her stance, likely due to the division within the Democratic Party over whether to prioritize locking up criminals or holding police accountable.

To benefit their nation and their political party, Democrats must return to a sensible approach regarding crime. As Harris expressed in her 2009 book, “Our mission is ultimately to achieve justice for victims and to prevent future victimization.”

This perspective should not be contentious, but it has become so within the current Democratic landscape. The controversy will persist until Democrats boldly articulate the fundamental truths that Harris did in 2009 but avoids in 2024.

Jeffrey Seaman is a Levy Scholar, and Paul Robinson serves as the Colin S. Diver Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. They are the co-authors of the recent book “Confronting Failures of Justice: Getting Away with Murder and Rape.”