Kamala Harris' 2009 Plagiarism: Context, Critique, and Relevance in 2020

As the political landscape in the United States continues to evolve, scandals and controversies play a significant role in shaping public opinion and discourse. One such incident, which gained renewed attention in recent discussions, revolves around Senator Kamala Harris's co-authored 2009 publication, Smart on Crime. In this article, we explore the details of this incidence, examine the context surrounding it, and evaluate its relevance in the ongoing 2020 campaign.

The Incident in 2009

In 2009, Kamala Harris co-authored a book called 'Smart on Crime'. The book was part of her preparation for the 2010 bid for state attorney general in California. During the writing process, Harris left footnotes without properly quoting the source text, leading to accusations of plagiarism. This incident garnered some attention at the time, but it has now resurfaced in discussions regarding her candidacy for the US presidency.

Understanding the Details of the Controversy

According to The National Review, a journal known for conservative leanings, the incident was not as serious as some commentators have made it out to be. They describe it as merely 'sloppy' rather than 'damning'. The National Review's analysis points to the fact that plagiarism is not a new or uncommon practice in the world of politics, where ghostwriters often assist in crafting campaign materials.

The Smart on Crime book, written as part of Harris's campaign preparations, was not a work of literary genius but rather a policy book focused on crime reform. According to The National Review, the fact that it even reached the level of being considered a 'scandal' is largely due to conservative attempts to manufacture outrage from nothing. The critique here highlights the double standards often prevalent in political discourse.

Plagiarism in Context

Critics, such as Destroyer of What’s Left, point out that the real fault lies with the ghostwriter, not Harris herself. They emphasize the common practice of using ghostwriters in political campaigns, arguing that this is widely acknowledged and accepted. The argument is that the scrutiny on Harris should be focused on the misuse of footnotes rather than her professional or personal character.

Relation to the 2020 Campaign and Broader Context

The resurfacing of this incident in the 2020 campaign comes amid heightened scrutiny of candidates’ backgrounds and writings. It raises questions about the nature of political rhetoric and the role of truth in political discourse. As Kamala Harris seeks to navigate these issues, it is important to contextualize the 2009 incident within a larger conversation about the use of ghostwriters and the broader systematic issues in the current political environment.

The National Review’s critique of Chris Rufo, the author of the original article that revived this incident, further emphasizes the manufactured nature of the 'scandal'. Rufo, described as a right-wing provocateur, has sought to create a narrative around this incident that discredits Harris. This narrative is contrasted with the real issues faced by other candidates, such as the criminal behavior of Donald Trump.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the 2009 plagiarism incident involving Kamala Harris is a case that requires a nuanced understanding. While the misuse of footnotes in her 2009 book was unfortunate, it is part of a larger context of political writing practices. The resurfacing of this incident in the 2020 campaign should be seen against the backdrop of broader political discourse and the fight for integrity in public service. As voters seek to make informed decisions, it is crucial to consider the issue in light of the wider context and not simply as a manufactured scandal.