Last night at the concluding session of the Democratic National Convention, Vice President Kamala Harris gave her acceptance speech for the nomination as the Democratic candidate for November’s presidential election.
I didn’t listen to the speech live since it began after my bedtime, but by 5:30 this morning (Aug. 23), I had read the full transcript and then later in the morning I watched her deliver her speech on YouTube. Listening to her powerful speech, as well as vice presidential nominee Tim Walz’s speech given the previous day, solidified my support for Harris and Walz. (My blog post on August 9 was titled “In Support of Harris and Walz.”)
What I liked in Harris’s speech
Please recognize that what I am writing here are my views as a Christian and only secondarily as a Democrat. Thus, it was noteworthy that early in her speech Kamala made reference to the Golden Rule as taught by Jesus. She didn’t refer to those words by that name, but she spoke of “the importance of treating others as you would want to be treated. With kindness, respect and compassion.”
A little later, she remarked, “In our system of justice, a harm against any one of us is harm against all of us.” That is somewhat related to the Golden Rule–but also to the South African concept of ubuntu, that wonderful word/concept I wrote about in an April 2021 blog post (see here).
Regarding what she called “the war in Gaza,” Kamala declared that “now is the time to get a hostage deal and a cease-fire deal done.” After clearly stating that she would “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself,” she went on to state that “what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. … The scale of suffering is heartbreaking.”
And then notably, she spoke of how she and Pres. Biden are working to end this war so that “the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.” As one who is greatly concerned about peace and justice for all people, and especially for those who have been most unjustly treated, that is the position I want the U.S. president to take.
What I didn’t like in Harris’s speech
One thing I didn’t like about Kamala’s speech was her repeated reference to fight/fighting. Those words had been used repeatedly during the convention, and she used them at least 15 times in her acceptance speech. Yes, I know, as Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary says, the second meaning of fight is “to put forth a determined effort,” but the first meaning is “to contend in battle or physical combat.” As a Christian pacifist, I wish she would have used terminology that didn’t include the possibility of physical violence.
Secondly, while there was reference to helping the middle class–and certainly there is much that needs to be done in that regard–there was hardly anything said about helping those who are living in poverty, which, unfortunately, is a sizeable percentage of the USAmerican population. (A week from today, I am planning to post an article titled “Considering ‘the Least of These'” on my regular blogsite.”)
And then–and this is the biggest problem I saw in Harris’s speech–there was no recognition of the coming ecological crisis that I have written about repeatedly in the last two and half years. She said one sentence noting the need for “freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” But the looming ecological crisis is so much more than that.
The speech ended with a clarion call for all of us “on behalf of our children and our grandchildren,” and “guided by optimism and faith,” to help write “the next great chapter in the most extraordinary story ever told.” Unless there are drastic changes implemented soon, that next great chapter will, sadly, most likely be short indeed.
The View from This Seat (supplementary blog) 
I agree with everything you’ve written here, although in general I support anything Harris & her team say that will convince undecided voters to vote for them. They are clearly shading conservative/moderate to win over independents.
The most upsetting part of the convention to me was that they did not allow a Palestinian-American impacted by the war in Gaza to speak (many Palestinian-Americans have lost family there), even though the DNC allowed parents of a Hamas hostage to speak. I think that was a mistake, although I assume it was a cold, hard, calculation they made about the best way to win over undecided voters.
–KKS
Here are comments received early this morning from Scott Lakin, an ex-Representative in the Missouri state legislature:
“I appreciate your perspective and don’t disagree. Keep in mind the speech was directed at Independent and undecided voters and people that plan to go to the polls and vote.”
Next, I received the following comments from Mike Greer from Kentucky. He (like me) is a former Southern Baptist missionary to Southeast/East Asia.
“Some brilliant observations. The planet is toast. So also, it may be so with this culture. We the people are in denial about this existential catastrophe that is upon us. We look for fantastic displays like the DNC to distract us and to take our mind off of the real threats. It is a kind of insanity where we who point this out are deemed to be the crazy ones. I did wonder if they were handing out uppers at the convention. What Biden has reminded me of this last year is that the poor and that which is moral are always sacrificed on the altar of power. We may be sloughing off racism and misogyny in this culture but there is always a great danger that comes with having access to power, even if you are a woman of color. I saw the DNC gathering as an Old Timey Revival Meeting, calling the faithful to repentance and an unquestioning loyalty to the Party. As an American who has been horrified at what we have done to the Palestinians, I was repulsed by the political decision to not stomp on that wallowing in joy by calling attention to that hell on earth in Gaza that we Democrats now own. I found the binge on the emotion of ecstasy to be repulsive. Harris did not dare allow a Palestinian American to step on stage. I share your discomfort for your reasons and more. I remain a withdrawing Democrat that is uncommitted. Not only did I see the DNC as a sort of religious gathering but also as a kind of metaphorical football game where the coach gives an inspiring halftime speech to the team. Everything in America seems to be a football game these days, where there are winners and losers. Everything is a battle to the finish. Can this culture be redeemed? I am not optimistic and the gathering in Chicago didn’t help me. I suspect that there are many fellow citizens who can say the same.”
Ed Kail is a retired Christian minister who lives in the Northland of Kansas City. Here are his comments:
“Thanks for sharing your terrific reflection on the speech.
“My wife and I had a conversation just last night about the prevalent use of the word ‘fight’ in political discourse — and how unhelpful and undesirable that is. She even sent an email to the vice-president to urge her to change her language from “fight” to “work for”.
“Maybe the Spanish word lucha is closer to what we would espouse — a sense of the ‘struggle’ of life with the forces of death.
“We’re with you!”
Then, I received these thoughtful comments from Linda Schroeder, who lives in south Kansas City:
“Thank you, Leroy, for expressing my identical reactions. I too rejoiced in the goodness of her character and intentions for her leadership as president, but at the same time was appalled by her narrow focus on the middle class and cringed at her fighting vocabulary. I fussed and talked back to her every time, fearing that many disgruntled others would hear it literally as a clarion call to violence. I’m pondering how best to communicate our concerns to her and her campaign team . . . as individual messages . . . or as a compilation of messages from your Thinking Friends . . . or a petition to be widely circulated for signatures at public events . . . or ? ? ? “
Dr. Glenn Hinson, who lives in Kentucky, shares these comments:
“Leroy, I think I would hold up more of the positive elements of Harris’s speech without omitting some of its deficiencies. I like Dan Rather’s assessment of the whole Democratic Convention that set the stage for Harris,”
Bob Perry, a friend who lives in Springfield, Mo., writes,
“I always appreciate your thoughtful observations. On the whole, I thought Kamala’s speech was masterful. I think I agree with your suggestions of how it could have been stronger.”
And then this from Dick Wilson in North Carolina:
“Astute observations, Leroy!
“The lower class are probably under-mentioned because of the likelihood that due to their economic situation they will (proportionally) vote less and contribute less to campaign coffers.
“Clear emphasis on the ecological crisis is likely to be off-putting to many crossover voters and conservative Democrats.
“And, yes, even though I am not quite a pacifist, fighting is not the imagery apropos to getting elected. Election politics is about ‘becoming elected’ not ‘winning a fight!’ I suspect a rhetorical flourish to appeal to veterans and active-duty military who do have to fight or be prepared to fight.
“I think my cynicism seeps out in my remarks. ‘When will we ever learn.’
“Thanks for sharing.”
Vern Barnet has long been an interfaith leader in Kansas City. I appreciate him sharing these comments:
“I was also bothered by the use of ‘fight’ (I have complained about metaphors of violence elsewhere), and I think a metaphor of healing would have been far better: a fight suggests two combatants contesting over a prize, the old GOP-DEM political exercise. But ‘healing’ the political situation implies the GOP is (and maybe all of us are) sick and frames the nature of the problem not in terms of ‘winning’ but in terms of a restoration of well-being.”
A few minutes ago, I received an email from my good friend Fred Heeren, who asked that I post the following comments here.
“As someone who would now call himself a ‘pacifist with some qualms,’ I’ve been working at dropping the ‘fight’ language from my own vocabulary over recent years—so I too took note of Harris’s frequent use of the word ‘fight.’ Maybe she’s not fortunate enough to have pacifists in her life to kindly wise her up on this?
“And like you, I was especially struck by her mention of her concerns for the middle class without a word about the poor.
“Oh well, 95% of the speech was filled with excellent content excellently delivered, and I’m excited about her beating the pants off, I mean, soundly defeating with dignity, the MAGA ticket.”
I agree with you Leroy. Thank you.
However, I am concerned about Kamala Harris statements that when fact checked by the BBC for instance, are not accurate. She should not mislead us like Trump does. Truthfulness is important for trust.
Thanks for your comments, Andrew. I fully agree that presidential candidates should be careful to be factually correct in what they say and should not say things that are misleading. Thus, I was also troubled that the Vice President made statements that were questionable or factually incorrect, and I hope she will be more careful in the weeks ahead. But at least there is no question but that her false/questionable statements are very few compared to what DJT says over and over again.
Thanks for your insightful comments, Leroy. I was especially dismayed that she ignored climate change, which I see as one of the most critical problems we have. But I trust that when she’s president it will also be a critical problem for her.
As for “fight” I think the word was used for it’s psychological impact rather than to indicate divisiveness and violence. The word conveys energy, strength and determination. Trump is a very formidable opponent. His very presence shouts power, confidence, violence, and “take no prisoners”. Something was needed to counter that – and the word “fight’ does that. Unfortunately, “woman” still carries the stereotype of soft and powerless. And, as a woman, Harris also carries that baggage for some. Something was needed to show that Harris, even as a woman, is a worthy opponent to Trump and will make a strong president. The word fight” does that. If the goal here is to win the election, “fight” is exactly the right word to use.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Sharon. I agree with what you said in your first paragraph, and while I still would have liked for her to have used different terminology about working hard to win, I think what you said about “fight” was well stated and worth serious consideration.
(I would like to know more about you and wonder if you would like to be a regular reader of my blog posts. If you are interested, please send me an email at LKSeat@gmail.com. Thanks!)
Yesterday evening, Truett Baker in Arizona send the following pertinent comments:
“One of the most substantial and powerful political speeches I’ve ever heard. I do agree with your list of shortcomings. The Vice-President has learned well the lessons of diplomacy from Joe Biden, who I greatly appreciate and admire.”
Charles Kiker in Texas shares these thoughtful words:
“I’m in general agreement with your take. I was uneasy with her jingoism toward the end of the speech, especially with her emphasis on the strongest military force in the world, and the phrase about “lethal capability.” I think she was saying what she felt she had to say to be elected. And I think this election is crucial. I don’t think it’s crying wolf when we are warned that DJT is a threat to democracy.”