An interview on MSNBC involving Vice President Kamala Harris drew considerable attention on social media, primarily due to her frequent use of the word “holistic.” The interview, which aired on the night of September 25, triggered criticism from political pundits and regular viewers alike, with many mocking her for what they perceived as an overuse of the term in her discussion about housing policy.
Harris was in conversation with host Stephanie Ruhle, where she articulated her strategies to address housing and transit challenges. However, her choice of words quickly became the center of focus. “Some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing,” Harris expressed. She added, “And looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.”
Her word choice quickly caught the attention of critics, including conservative commentator Clay Travis, who pointed out on social media that Harris had chosen to use the word “holistic” repeatedly in a short timeframe.
Seizing the opportunity, the Trump campaign criticized Harris. The Trump War Room account jokingly suggested that Harris had just discovered the word “holistically.” This playful comment was among several others circulating on different platforms, with some critics likening Harris’ frequent use of the word to a “word salad.”
Despite the public criticism, Harris defended her approach, asserting that a “holistic” perspective was essential in tackling interconnected issues like housing, transportation, and the economy. However, political analysts were quick to point out that her interview responses were broad and somewhat evasive, failing to offer concrete solutions.
The New York Times also observed a lack of specificity in Harris’ responses, especially regarding voter concerns about the economy: “When asked why voters still trust Donald Trump to handle the economy, Harris avoided providing a direct answer and instead attacked Trump’s record on jobs and manufacturing.”
However, Harris’ supporters argue that the criticism is exaggerated, pointing out that politicians often resort to generalities during interviews. They contend that Harris’ frequent use of “holistic” indicates her genuine intention to address systemic issues comprehensively.
Some viewers expressed frustration over Harris’ apparent reluctance to engage with more challenging questions. Host Stephanie Ruhle also faced criticism for what many believed was a lenient approach, allowing Harris to evade direct questions about her policies.
For example, when questioned about the future of the U.S. Senate and the feasibility of implementing her administration’s proposed policies without a Democratic majority, Harris refrained from a detailed response. She reiterated her stance on corporate taxation, emphasizing the need for top corporations and billionaires to contribute their fair share.
The interview signified Harris’ first significant solo appearance since she became the Democratic presidential nominee following President Biden’s withdrawal. It supplied her critics with new fodder, highlighting what some see as her struggle to connect with voters through clear, concise messaging. It should be noted, however, that Harris has conducted only a few high-profile interviews since Biden’s departure, most of them with local or specialized media outlets.
As the election approaches, the Vice President’s media strategy continues to be a topic of discussion. While some argue that her selection of “friendly” interviewers enables her to dictate the narrative, others believe it prevents her from addressing the tough questions that might influence undecided voters.
