Critiquing Kamala Harris
Applying Paul-Elder’s Critical Thinking Framework to Kamala Harris’s 60 Minutes Interview
In a recent interview on 60 Minutes, Vice President Kamala Harris tackled questions on critical policy matters, ranging from economic plans to immigration policy and foreign affairs. While some viewers may have found her responses evasive, analyzing her statements through the Paul-Elder critical thinking framework provides a structured way to evaluate her reasoning and rhetorical choices.
Now, I am voting for Kamala Harris. However, as a person who adopted the self-styled political title of “a critically-minded leftist,” I believe we should critique all positions and people, not merely those with whom we disagree. Indeed, it is quite easy to analyze someone like JD Vance, and I have. But I digress.
The Paul-Elder framework, developed by Richard Paul and Linda Elder, offers a set of universal intellectual standards designed to promote critical thinking. These include clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, and fairness. Let's assess Harris’s interview responses using this framework.
1. Clarity
One of the key critical thinking standards is clarity. Harris’s responses sometimes lacked directness, particularly when discussing the funding for her economic plan, which is projected to add $3 trillion to the deficit. Instead of providing a straightforward breakdown of how she would cover the costs, Harris initially spoke about broader goals, such as supporting small businesses and the middle class. While these are worthy goals, the lack of clarity in her answer makes it difficult to understand precisely how her administration plans to handle the financial burden. She mentions having the wealthy pay their fair share, but to get such a bill through Congress is a tall order. Will she come up against the same political blockade? There needs to be a dominant democratic majority in the House and Senate to pull it off. Indeed, by not providing specific details, Harris left room for uncertainty, which could have been avoided with a more straightforward, direct answer.
2. Accuracy
Accuracy requires that statements be truthful and supported by evidence. In discussing her economic plan and immigration policy, Harris leaned on generalities without diving into specific data or concrete facts. For instance, when pressed about the significant increase in undocumented immigrants under the Biden-Harris administration, she emphasized the complexity of the issue. Still, she did not directly confront the reasons behind the rise in numbers. While her explanation may reflect the truth about immigration being a longstanding problem, the lack of specific evidence regarding the administration's role reduces the accuracy of her response. Accurate answers would involve acknowledging particular policy outcomes and their real-world effects.
3. Precision
Precision involves being specific and detailed in responses. Harris’s answers often missed this mark. For example, when asked about changing positions on policies like fracking or Medicare for All, she spoke broadly about building consensus and listening to people. These are valid political principles, but they did not specifically address the shifts in her stances. She does not acknowledge that she really is not in favor of fracking but, for the sake of consensus, looks for a compromise. This is more precise and really shows us where she stands. A more accurate response would have included clear explanations of why she changed her mind on these issues and how her new positions align with current policy goals.
4. Relevance
Harris’s responses were generally relevant to the topics asked, though sometimes her answers veered into more comfortable talking points, which may have diluted the relevance. When discussing whether she would meet with Vladimir Putin, her answer that any meeting would have to include Ukraine was relevant to the question, but she avoided elaborating on whether a multilateral meeting would be on the table. By not fully addressing the heart of the question, her response felt incomplete, reducing its relevance in terms of directly addressing the interviewer’s query.
5. Depth
Depth requires an exploration of the complexities of an issue. Harris demonstrated a reasonable amount of depth when discussing immigration, acknowledging the longstanding nature of the issue and the administration’s current efforts to address it. However, depth was lacking in areas such as her economic plan funding. A deeper response would have involved addressing the challenges of balancing economic growth with deficit management or providing specific examples of policies designed to raise revenue or cut costs. Depth is critical in these complex issues, as superficial responses risk underestimating the audience’s desire for thorough answers.
6. Breadth
Breadth considers whether multiple perspectives are considered in a response. Harris often mentioned consensus-building, implying a willingness to consider various viewpoints. However, she didn’t fully explore the different perspectives on these issues when discussing NATO expansion or shifting policy positions. A broader response might have included an acknowledgment of the debates surrounding NATO expansion, such as concerns from other NATO members or the potential long-term consequences of Ukraine’s membership. Engaging with these differing viewpoints would have shown a greater breadth of understanding.
7. Logic
Logic ensures that reasoning follows a coherent structure and makes sense in the context of the discussion. Most of Harris’s responses were logically structured in terms of following a rational sequence. However, there were moments, particularly when she was asked how she would pay for her economic plan, where the logical connection between her general statements and the specific question at hand was weak. While investing in the middle class and small businesses is an important goal, it doesn’t directly answer the question of funding a multi-trillion-dollar plan. A logical response would directly address how her proposals align with the financial challenges they present.
8. Fairness
Fairness in critical thinking involves ensuring that all viewpoints are represented without bias or distortion. In this interview, Harris leaned heavily on political caution, perhaps to avoid making definitive statements that could become campaign liabilities. While this may be strategic, it can leave viewers feeling they didn’t receive fully transparent or fair answers. For instance, when asked about changes in her positions, a fairer response would have involved acknowledging criticism and explaining the reasoning behind her policy evolution in a way that fully engaged with the concerns raised.
Conclusion
Using the Paul-Elder critical thinking framework to assess Kamala Harris’s 60 Minutes interview highlights her responses' strengths and weaknesses. While she provided relevant and generally logical answers, they often lacked the clarity, precision, and depth to fully satisfy critical scrutiny. Her political caution may have contributed to her less direct answers, but critical thinkers would expect greater transparency, detailed evidence, and a full engagement with the complexities of the issues discussed.
As voters and citizens, applying such a framework enables us to move beyond surface-level reactions and assess the intellectual merits of political discourse more rigorously. The Paul-Elder framework is a valuable tool in cutting through ambiguity and holding public figures accountable for the quality of their reasoning and communication.
