Kamala Harris entered the 2024 election cycle with immense potential to distinguish herself from President Biden, break free from political inertia, and lead the country toward a more progressive future. However, throughout her campaign and time as Vice President, she consistently missed opportunities to make bold, decisive moves on critical issues, particularly in foreign policy and domestic reforms. Her approach has been marked by careful political maneuvering, but it has lacked the courage and clarity needed to galvanize key voter bases, such as progressives, moderate voters, and communities critical of U.S. foreign policy. Had she seized these opportunities, Harris could have positioned herself not only to win the presidency but to address pressing issues that align with the majority of Americans’ desires for change.

The Missed Opportunity on Israel and Gaza

One of the clearest areas where Kamala Harris faltered was in her response to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The issue has been a defining one for many progressive voters, particularly Muslim and Arab Americans, who have long felt marginalized by U.S. foreign policy. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Harris avoided taking a strong, clear stance on Israel’s military actions in Gaza, often choosing instead to repeat vague expressions of support for Israel’s right to self-defense. She never took the opportunity to denounce the killing of civilians in Gaza or to call for a reevaluation of U.S. military aid to Israel. In interviews, she was often evasive on the issue, even agreeing to interviews with Muslim podcasters on the condition that they avoid discussing Gaza at all. This tone-deaf response alienated many who felt that the U.S. should not be providing military aid to a nation that was accused of committing atrocities against civilians in Gaza.

By refusing to take a bold stance, Harris squandered the opportunity to differentiate herself from the status quo of U.S. foreign policy, which has long been criticized for enabling human rights abuses by foreign governments. Had she unequivocally called for a ceasefire, advocated for withholding military aid until Israel met certain conditions, or emphasized the importance of a peaceful, two-state solution, she could have gained significant support from those who felt the U.S. was complicit in the suffering of Palestinian civilians. This move would have resonated with younger voters, progressives, and American Muslim communities—demographics that are increasingly dissatisfied with the traditional political establishment.

The Domestic Policy Agenda She Could Have Led

Beyond foreign policy, Harris missed a significant opportunity to carve out a distinct agenda on domestic issues. Throughout her tenure as Vice President, she rarely took bold steps or introduced new policies, instead relying on Biden’s administration to set the tone. While Biden’s policies are largely seen as a continuation of Obama-era initiatives, they have failed to address some of the most pressing issues facing the country today. Harris could have used her position to advocate for bold changes—especially in areas like healthcare, immigration, and economic inequality—issues where American voters are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of action.

The Border Crisis: One key area where Harris could have taken a leadership role is in addressing the border crisis. Although she was appointed by Biden as the “border czar,” her efforts to address the issue were widely seen as ineffective and symbolic. By directly taking control of the conversation, Harris could have pushed for stronger border enforcement while also advocating for more comprehensive immigration reform. She could have proposed solutions that balanced national security with compassion, positioning herself as a pragmatic leader who can address the issue head-on, which would have likely gained support from moderates and independents, as well as conservative voters seeking a more secure border.

Redirecting Foreign Aid: Another opportunity for Harris to stand out was to propose reallocating military aid to other nations—especially those involved in human rights abuses—toward domestic priorities. By championing policies that prioritize American citizens over military interventions abroad, Harris could have positioned herself as a leader focused on “America First” principles. The funds currently sent overseas could be redirected into healthcare, infrastructure, or educational reforms. This move would likely resonate with moderate Republicans and independents who have become increasingly critical of U.S. foreign entanglements, as well as with progressives seeking domestic investment over endless wars abroad.

The Political Strategy She Should Have Adopted

Harris could have strategically positioned herself as a bold reformer who prioritizes domestic issues, particularly for marginalized communities, while also advocating for a shift in U.S. foreign policy. By taking strong positions on key issues—such as ending military aid to oppressive regimes, advocating for human rights, and focusing on internal reform—she could have won the trust of key demographics.

The Key to Winning the Presidency: To capture the White House, Harris needed to appeal not just to the Democratic base but also to disillusioned voters across the political spectrum. By emphasizing domestic policies like universal healthcare, addressing the opioid crisis, and creating new economic opportunities, she could have broadened her appeal. Additionally, if she had led with empathy and moral clarity on global issues, especially by standing firmly against Israel’s actions in Gaza, she could have galvanized the progressive wing of her party and young voters, who are increasingly interested in leaders who are willing to challenge the status quo.

Harris could have also used her platform to champion more tangible, everyday policies—such as tax reform that benefits working-class Americans, universal access to education, and healthcare that prioritizes underserved communities. By positioning herself as a candidate who listens to the concerns of the people and is not afraid to make bold moves to address them, Harris could have drawn a contrast between herself and Biden, whose approval ratings have suffered due to inaction on several critical issues.

The Cost of Political Calculus

Instead of acting decisively on these issues, Harris has often adhered to a cautious, political calculus that prioritizes maintaining support from powerful interest groups over speaking to the broader electorate. By focusing too much on attacking Trump and remaining closely aligned with Biden’s policies, Harris failed to offer the clear vision and leadership that many voters were seeking. Her approach has been characterized as overly scripted and inauthentic, leaving voters questioning her ability to act on her own.

If she had adopted a more assertive leadership role—particularly on foreign policy and domestic reforms—she could have positioned herself as a transformative leader who was unafraid to challenge powerful lobbies, confront difficult issues, and propose real change. By doing so, Harris could have not only won the presidency but set the stage for a presidency that truly prioritized American citizens over foreign conflicts.

Conclusion: The Road Not Taken

Kamala Harris had a unique opportunity to break from the traditional political establishment, but her failure to take a firm stance on Israel, Gaza, and domestic reforms has cost her support among critical voting blocs. By adopting a more progressive platform—focused on stopping the war in Gaza, reforming the border, and redirecting military aid to domestic priorities—Harris could have won the presidency and redefined what it means to lead America into a new era. Instead, by failing to act boldly, she has become a passive figure in a time that desperately needs decisive leadership.

Had she taken these risks, Kamala Harris could have been the president who delivered change, halted the wars abroad, focused on the needs of her people, and led America toward a brighter, more just future.