Bret Stephens, a noted critic of Donald Trump, remains undecided on supporting Vice President Kamala Harris, voicing concerns over her lack of specific policy responses, Fox News reported.

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, known for his opposition to Donald Trump, is now expressing reservations about the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris. Stephens has publicly questioned Harris’s ability to provide specific answers to pressing national and international issues, a hesitance he attributes to his skepticism about her candidacy.

Stephens has articulated concerns regarding Harris’s stance on various critical matters such as military action against Iran, the U.S. role in Ukraine, the feasibility of a Palestinian state, solutions to the housing crisis, and the inclusion of nuclear energy in climate initiatives. His critique extends to Harris’s recent media appearances where he found her responses insubstantial.

Media Engagement Raises More Questions Than Answers

In his column, Stephens cited interviews where he felt Harris provided "lighter than air" responses, specifically referencing her conversations with CNN’s Dana Bash and 6ABC’s Brian Taff. This has contributed to a growing discomfort Stephens feels towards Harris, a sentiment he claims he did not experience with past Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.

Despite being the Democratic frontrunner for over two months, Harris has yet to hold a formal press conference, a fact that Stephens finds troubling. Meanwhile, her campaign has increased her visibility through selective media engagements, including an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists in Philadelphia.

Stephens’s unease is compounded by his perception that Harris might not be addressing the core concerns of many American voters, particularly those feeling alienated by what he describes as "elite incompetence." He challenges Harris to demonstrate her capability to engage with and address these voter bases effectively.

Harris's Campaign Defends Against Criticism

The Harris campaign often counters criticism by pointing to the dangers posed by Donald Trump to democratic norms, a strategy Stephens acknowledges but criticizes for its potential overuse. He urges Harris to articulate a clearer and more detailed political vision to attract voters who remain wary of her policy positions.

Stephens’s challenge to Harris goes beyond simple electoral tactics. He poses direct questions about her potential presidential decisions, such as her willingness to use force against Iran should they be close to developing a nuclear weapon, and her boundaries for supporting Ukraine amidst ongoing conflict.

The columnist’s critique extends to domestic issues as well, questioning Harris’s solutions to the ongoing housing crisis and her plans for integrating nuclear power into her climate policies. These are areas where Stephens believes Harris has yet to provide satisfactory answers.

Seeking Answers to Define a Presidency

"If Harris can answer the sorts of questions I posed above, she should be quick to do so, if only to dispel a widespread perception of unseriousness," Stephens asserts. His commentary reflects a broader concern about the ability of current political leaders to resonate with and mobilize an increasingly disillusioned electorate.

Stephens also critiques what he sees as Harris’s reliance on canned responses and a lack of substantive policy discourse. He suggests that proving her depth in these areas could be crucial for winning over undecided voters like himself.

In conclusion, Stephens’s perspective encapsulates a significant challenge for Harris as she continues her campaign. He emphasizes the necessity for detailed policy explanations to ensure that her candidacy is taken seriously by voters who remain skeptical of her qualifications and policy depth.