Have Kamala Harris’s Values Changed?
09/04/2024
Weighing Changes in Values versus Valuing Something
Vice President Kamala Harris last Thursday offered her most comprehensive explanation to date on why she’s changed some of her positions on immigration and fracking, telling Dana Bash her values haven’t shifted but that her time as vice president provided new perspective on some of the country’s most pressing issues. My ethics meter shot up when I heard the explanation and how Harris conflated what it means to have a set of values and what it means to value things.
What Are Values?
I have previously blogged about values. I started by defining what it means. Values are often deeply held convictions that guide decision making. For example, honesty is a value that should drive one’s behavior, as is integrity, responsibility, kindness, compassion, empathy, and respect for others to name a few. The ancient Greeks believed that integrity was the whole of virtuous—ethical—behavior. In other words, it is unlikely a person does the right thing unless they act in accordance with the virtues, and maintain their integrity, meaning acting in the “right” way, not the “wrong” way.
Values can also include free speech and other Constitutional rights. Equality is a value guaranteed by the Constitution and relevant to many decisions we make, and actions we take, in society.
Values are often shaped by our family upbringing, culture, religion, and personal experiences. They can influence how we interact with others and make choices in life. For example, someone who believes all people should be treated equally values treating others fairly: we could say a value that drives behavior is equality for all.
When Harris says she hasn’t changed her values it can be confusing. For example, in the 2020 election, Harris took a progressive stance on immigration. She wanted immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally to be eligible for government healthcare, and she wanted to decriminalize border crossings.
One could say by her statement, Harris was valuing equal opportunity. However, is it a responsible position? Is it fair to Americans for those crossing into the country illegally to have the same opportunity for work and health benefits as citizens? Obviously, there are two sides to this issue but to say her values have not changed misses the point.
In her interview on CNN, Harris said that “We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there should be consequences.” This is a 180-degree reversal of her position.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying Harris’s position is wrong or the change is bad. I am not passing judgment on her candidacy or her positions. I’m simply trying to educate the public on why when Harris says her values have not changed, she is misinterpreting the meaning of values vis-à-vis valuing something—an idea or an action. The value illustrated by Harris’s position as stated in the CNN interview is responsibility. A person should be held responsible for their actions. In other words, if you cross the border illegally, you should be ready to pay the price. Responsibility, like accountability, are values that should guide our actions and behaviors in all circumstances. Responsible people act reliably.
What is Valuing?
Valuing something typically means recognizing its worth or importance. This could be something like valuing a relationship or an experience. Valuing is about external recognition and appreciation.
Valuing tends to be more situational than one’s values that don’t (should not) change over time. For example, a person might value a job because of its financial security but make a 180 degree turn if the experiences gained on the job fall to advance an individual in the organization. Thus, the appreciation for the job can change over time or depending on the context.
Returning to the immigration issue, back in 2020 Harris was valuing equity. By supporting a free and open immigration policy, Harris was trying to move immigrants into, relatively speaking, a similar position as citizens in seeking out a job. Her values did change. Now that she has taken a position that there should be consequences for illegal crossings, Harris is favoring consequences for actions, which is an element of responsible behavior (i.e., accountability for one’s actions).
Changing Positions
In addition to changing her position on immigration, Harris has changed her position on fracking. Back in 2019 when she first ran for president, Harris said she was firmly in favor of banning fracking, a position she changed once she became Biden’s running mate because he wasn’t against it.
In the interview, Harris told Dana Bash of CNN that she would not ban fracking, a reversal of a position when she first started to run for president. She explained it by telling Bash, “What I have seen is that we can grow, and we can increase a clean energy economy without banning fracking.”
We can say that Harris is valuing a ban in the first instance and then valuing no ban in the latter. Her values have changed. So, it’s possible to change one’s values and, at the same time, what one is valuing. When she supported a ban on fracking, Harris was supporting a green energy policy. Now she admits there needs to be more flexibility in that policy.
Integrity: The Basis for Ethics
It is difficult to ignore the change in Harris’s values on this issue. Integrity means to have the courage of your convictions. If you question whether Harris really supports fracking, then you are questioning her integrity—the essence of ethical behavior. Why did she change her position? Was it truly because she now believes fracking is an acceptable part of an energy policy or is it for political purposes? Did she act in accordance with her beliefs in changing her position, as required by integrity?
A cynic might say that Harris has changed her positions on immigration and fracking to appeal to a broader electorate. A cynic might even contend that Harris will go back to her original positions if elected president. That is unknowable right now. Nevertheless, when a person changes their positions so dramatically it does raise the question of integrity.
A caveat is necessary here. Virtually all politicians change their positions at one time or another. We could say that by this change they are valuing getting elected over truth-telling.
To be clear once again, I am not picking sides in the election. I could have examined Trump’s positions and produced comparable results. For example, there clearly has been a shift in his position on abortion.
One could say that Trump values what ethicists call the pursuit of self interest or egoism. This means to do what is best for the individual even if it is not in the best interests of others. This is a complex concept and best left for another time.
Ethically, we could say that all politicians should act in a utilitarian way, that is, “the ends justify the means.” Not so. The way we think through and decide whether to take an action (the means for deciding) is just as important, oftentimes more important, than the action itself (the ends). In other words, have we lived our lives based on our immutable values, or have we deviated from them in a way that we have compromised our values when convenient and now value a different position because it may produce a more desirable result for the decision-maker on a personal or professional level.
Posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., aka Ethics Sage on September 4, 2024. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.