The Case Against Kamala

By: Michael Macks  |  November 4, 2024
SHARE

By Michael Macks

Editor’s note: This Letter to the Editor was written in response to the article “The Case for Kamala.”

Recently an article was published in the YU Observer where a student argued the case for “Jews for Kamala.” All of the author’s arguments have already been counterargued ad nauseam, and therefore, my intent here is not to present those specific counterarguments. Rather, I hope to speak to Jews who find themselves in that camp and show that a vote for Kamala stems from a well-intentioned but dangerously warped sense of priority. 

Maimonides writes that the result of man’s “Original Sin” was that the lens through which human beings view the world became subjective rather than objective. Instead of viewing things clearly as objectively “true or false,” we now apply our subjective filters to see things as what we personally deem “good or bad.” The principles of the Torah were given to humanity to help guide our perspective back to that of Adam’s pre-sin, to be able to see things closer to an objectively true perspective.

Let’s apply this mindset to the question of Trump vs. Kamala and try to see things more objectively.

The article argued that Trump is a ‘bad’ candidate because he was a sore loser, has a big ego, and speaks brashly about his political opponents. Kamala is a ‘good’ candidate because she speaks kindly about immigrants, prices will remain about the same no matter who takes office and she places more emphasis on the plight of the Palestinians. In a nutshell, Trump’s rhetoric can be offensive or insulting, while Kamala’s rhetoric seems more peaceful.

I believe those who have argued for this position are well-intentioned because, after all, who doesn’t want peace? However, respectfully, I believe that this line of thinking is a prime example of the idiom “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.” That is because, objectively speaking, it is irrefutable that Trump has proven to be better suited to bless America and Israel with actual peace. 

Trump was the first president in over 20 years who started no new wars. He saved thousands of Jewish lives by stopping foreign aid that was landing in the hands of terrorists, kept Americans safe by protecting the border, brokered peace between Israel and multiple Arab states, kept Ukraine safe from Russia, annihilated ISIS and removed the existential threat of North Korea. The tongue that is criticized for its rhetoric is the very tongue that is responsible for brokering peace, saving Jewish lives, and commanding respect to America from the world.

Contrast this with Kamala’s track record. She is constantly threatening Israel with arms embargoes. At a recent rally when someone called out that Israel is committing genocide, Harris said that the protestor had a point, stating, “what he’s talking about, it’s real.” The Biden-Harris administration has also allowed the rampant antisemitism on college campuses to continue without any repercussions. While Trump recognized that Iran is the primary source of terrorism around the world and sanctioned them with strength, Kamala’s politically correct ‘diplomatic’ approach effectively funded Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7 and assisted in Iran’s comeback to the world stage.

I also feel the need to add that the author’s assertion that “prices will remain the same or higher no matter who takes office” is simply false. Biden-Harris’s policies are far more inflationary than Trump’s. Inflation averaged 1.9% under Trump and 5.2% under Biden-Harris because of the latter’s terrible energy policies and irresponsible spending.

I admit that Trump could speak with more political correctness, but when held up against Kamala who practically-speaking, prioritizes political correctness over real peace, the choice should be clear. It comes down to a simple question: what do you value more, peaceful rhetoric or a peaceful world? 

Sincerely,

Michael Macks (YC ‘14) 

SHARE