Kamala Harris and the Moral Dilemma of Centrism: A Historic Candidacy and a Complicated Choice for the Left

Kamala Harris stands on the precipice of making history. As the Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidential election, her candidacy is momentous—she would be the first woman of color, the first Black woman, and the first South Asian woman to become President of the United States. For many, this represents a seismic shift in the trajectory of American politics, especially in a country that has long struggled with race, gender, and representation. Her very existence in this race is a direct challenge to the status quo.

Yet, for progressives and leftists, Harris presents a profound moral dilemma. Her political positions, especially in her efforts to appeal to a broader, more centrist electorate, have made her a controversial figure on the left. On issues ranging from criminal justice to foreign policy, Harris has often leaned into the center—or even the right—leaving many progressives uncomfortable with the compromises that seem to define her candidacy.

The Centrist Shift: A Necessity or a Betrayal?

For a Black woman to have risen as far as Harris has in American politics, it’s almost a given that she would need to be more centrist in her core politics. The U.S. political system often penalizes those who are seen as too far left, particularly candidates who do not fit the mold of traditional white male leadership. Harris’s political journey is, in many ways, a reflection of this reality. To survive—and thrive—she has had to make strategic compromises.

Her candidacy itself is a compromise within the political system. Harris is often seen as needing to “play the game”—to moderate her positions to be seen as non-threatening, even though her mere existence on the political stage is a threat to entrenched power structures. For some on the left, this reality makes Harris even more dangerous. It signals that her centrism is not just political strategy but part of a broader attempt to legitimize herself in a system that was never designed to include people like her. And yet, by doing so, she risks alienating the very voters who would benefit most from structural change.

1. Criminal Justice Reform: Tough on Crime or Reform-Minded?

One of the clearest examples of Harris’s centrism comes from her record as California’s Attorney General. As AG, Harris was known for her tough-on-crime approach, which included opposing measures to investigate police shootings, resisting calls to reform California’s “three strikes” law, and defending the death penalty despite her personal opposition to it. While she has since embraced more progressive criminal justice reforms, such as advocating for the decriminalization of marijuana and reducing mass incarceration, her record has left many on the left skeptical about her true commitment to transformative justice​.

2. Immigration: A More Restrained Approach

While Harris has criticized Trump-era immigration policies and voiced support for protections for Dreamers, her stance on immigration has remained more centrist than many progressives would like. Notably, she has refused to endorse the abolition of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which some on the left have demanded. During her tenure as Vice President, Harris made headlines when she urged potential migrants not to come to the U.S., emphasizing the dangers of the journey and signaling a continuation of the Biden administration’s more moderate immigration enforcement policies​.

3. Support for the Military and National Security: Playing to Moderates

Another point of contention is Harris’s approach to national security and the military. During public speeches, she has proudly referred to the U.S. military as a “killing force,” rhetoric that is more commonly associated with Republicans or conservative Democrats. This hawkish stance, designed to appeal to moderates and more conservative voters, is deeply troubling to progressives who advocate for a reduction in military interventionism abroad​

Her continued emphasis on military strength raises concerns about the potential for further U.S. involvement in international conflicts, which many leftists oppose.

4. Israel: Unwavering Support, Despite Criticism

Harris’s unequivocal support for Israel has also put her at odds with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, particularly as civilian casualties in Gaza continue to rise. Harris has steadfastly defended military aid to Israel, arguing that the country has a right to defend itself. Even when pressed on whether she would consider an arms embargo or any restrictions on U.S. weapons sales to Israel, Harris refused to budge, citing the need for Israel’s security.

This stance has angered many progressive Democrats, particularly those advocating for Palestinian rights, who see her position as too closely aligned with conservative foreign policy. Harris’s refusal to place conditions on U.S. aid to Israel, despite calls from her own party, highlights the tension between her centrist approach and the values of the progressive base.

5. Gun Rights: Straddling the Line

Despite her general support for gun control measures, Harris has made statements that seem designed to appeal to more centrist or conservative voters. She has openly discussed her ownership of a Glock and her stance on self-defense, a position that resonates with suburban and moderate voters concerned about personal safety​.

This tough-on-crime and self-defense narrative, while not as far right as Republican rhetoric, places her at odds with leftists advocating for sweeping gun reforms.

6. Healthcare: From Medicare for All to a Public Option

During her 2020 presidential primary campaign, Harris initially embraced Medicare for All, aligning herself with the progressive left on healthcare. However, she later walked back her support for the plan, endorsing a public option instead of fully eliminating private insurance. This move toward the center was seen as a capitulation to moderates and the healthcare industry, frustrating progressives who saw Medicare for All as a litmus test for serious healthcare reform​(

A Historic Candidacy—And a Dangerous Compromise?

Kamala Harris’s candidacy is historic, and her potential presidency would mark a transformative moment in U.S. politics. Yet, for many on the left, the compromise inherent in her political ascent is troubling. By moving to the center—on issues like military intervention, law enforcement, immigration, and Israel—Harris risks alienating the very progressives who are essential to building the kind of broad, diverse coalition that helped elect Biden in 2020.

Her existence on the national stage as a woman of color is a challenge to the political status quo. But it is precisely this paradox that makes her candidacy both inspiring and dangerous for leftists. Harris’s centrist positions reflect the compromises she has had to make to succeed in a system that was not built for her. However, for the left, this signals a deeper fear: that to succeed in American politics, even groundbreaking candidates like Harris must move toward the center, reinforcing a status quo that they were initially expected to disrupt.

The result is a complicated moral dilemma. Harris’s candidacy represents progress, but her policies often feel like a retreat from the bold changes many progressives hoped for. For voters on the left, the choice is not just about defeating Donald Trump but about whether they are willing to support a candidate whose centrism, while politically pragmatic, may reinforce the very system they seek to change.