President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation made a most curious comment about the forthcoming American election. He indicated that he prefers Kamala Harris to win the race for the presidency, rather than Donald Trump, because of her infectious smile. Surely, one could take this for what it is: a sardonic comment, not meant by Putin to reflect his real opinion on the American election. Nevertheless, intentionally, or unintentionally, he has raised an interesting point that encourages commentators to concentrate on Harris’ policies rather than her smile and laughter.

Interestingly, Harris’ smile is not unlike Jacinta Ardern’s grin. There is anecdotal evidence that, throughout her Prime Ministership, many people interpreted Ardern’s smile as indicating her genuine concern for people, confidence in her behaviour, and radiating peace to those outside the country.

Of course, we know that the quality of a book does not depend on the cover, and a smile cannot hide that there is a difference between form and substance. The Ardern government is widely held to have wrecked the New Zealand economy and weaponised governmental institutions against citizens, especially during Covid. If Harris becomes President, we can expect her to become a clone of Ardern: the economy will stall, human life will be devalued, and America will lose its dominance in the world.

Last year, one of the authors of this piece and his wife (are we still allowed to use the word ‘wife’?) visited Dubrovnik, Croatia. Fifty-three years ago, they were scheduled to honeymoon in Dubrovnik, but they had to abandon their plans because he received an invitation to undertake a postgraduate degree in America. Last year, they returned and rented a room at a private house in Dubrovnik. Another renter, a New Zealander, explained that she considered herself to be a refugee from New Zealand and its wrecked economy. She was a National Party supporter and vowed only to return to New Zealand when it was safe from the unsound policies of the then ruling Labor Party.

On March 23, 2020, a month after New Zealand had recorded its first case of Covid and had no related deaths, the Ardern government announced a draconian lockdown that devastated the national economy and destroyed countless livelihoods. This radical decision was highly praised by the usual suspects, including the discredited World Health Organisation.

Addressing the New Zealand Parliament on March 25, 2020, to argue for an extreme lockdown that was devoid of consultation, Ardern explained that her government’s job was to ‘save lives’. We consider this to be quite ironic. When the population was placed under a cruel form of treatment by their government, their concerns for basic human rights were completely ignored.

Returning to Kamala Harris, it is useful to briefly consider her policies, some of which were appropriated from the Trump campaign. There is a determined effort to appease the middle class and to lull them into the belief that America will bloom under her leadership. It is an insincere attempt at capturing the centre.

Professor David Flint, a perceptive commentator, noted in this publication that Harris blatantly copied Trump’s policy of ending the taxing of tips and this ‘was despite her breaking the tie in the Senate to enable the IRS … to pursue taxpayers receiving that important part of their remuneration, tips’. There is no doubt that removal of the tax is a good policy because it incentivises hospitality workers ‘to push harder for more tips’. Flint also recalls that Harris:

‘…has renounced the EV mandate so that people can keep their gasoline-driven cars, and her policies of abolishing private health care, defunding the police, and banning fracking. Then, she claimed, she would complete the wall on the southern border.’

Harris has proposed a ban on grocery price gouging but, while such a policy appears superficially attractive, it would distort the laws of demand and supply, and the expectation that the customer has the capacity to punish retailers for any unethical behaviour by not buying their products. The most laughable promise is that new security measures at the border would be funded under a bipartisan proposal which Harris would support. And fracking might even survive the Harris presidency. Her foreign policy is incomprehensible because she claims that she will always defend Israel’s right to defend itself, but at the same time, she seeks to protect Palestinians’ right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.

She also seeks to get brownie points from the wealthy, proposing to have a maximum 28 per cent capital gains tax, instead of 39.6 per cent under Biden. One would have to be braindead to believe she is a changed person! But her infectious smile and hysterical laughter may still appeal to a section of the electorate that is not concerned with sound policies. Even Putin was taken in! Or was he?

It is Harris’ policy on abortion that differentiates her from Trump. According to Harris, she would be keen to sign a law to restore Roe v Wade. However, as any lawyer trained in constitutional law would know, abortion issues belong to the legislative power of the States and, therefore, a federal law would be unconstitutional.

Since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, America has been fiercely divided into pro-life and pro-choice camps, the opinions of which did not leave much wiggle room for compromise or accommodation. The Supreme Court has ruled that the ‘liberty’ provision in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution does not protect a right to privacy, which had been relied upon in Roe v Wade to find a constitutional right to abortion. Of course, the 14th Amendment simply stipulates, ‘No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation– the case that overruled Roe v Wade – involved a constitutional challenge to the Mississippi Gestational Age Act 2018, which prohibited abortion of human fetuses beginning at 15 weeks. Associate Justice Alito Jnr said:

‘Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe [has] inflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.’

This prediction of ‘inflamed debate and deepened division’ has certainly eventuated since the release of the judgment on June 22, 2022.

The endless demonstrations against the Supreme Court indicate that the pro-choice lobby is unwilling to use its right to free speech to constructively analyse and criticise the judgment without resorting to violence. America is divided as never before, and Harris’ obstinate defence of abortion rights – part of the culture of death promoted by activists – is likely to fan the conflict.

It is baffling that a decision such as Roe took almost 50 years to be overturned. Using the language of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion, although almost 50 years have passed since Roe v Wade, ‘abortion advocates still cannot coherently articulate the right (or rights) at stake’ and fail to comprehend that the ‘right to abortion is ultimately a policy goal in a desperate search of a constitutional justification’.

The decision in Roe was an act of arbitrary judicial will, not legal judgment. The right it announced had nothing to do with the US Constitution or the Court’s precedent. Justice White definitely wasn’t overstating when he stated in his dissent in Roe that that ruling was ‘an exercise of raw judicial power’. He said:

‘I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers, and with scarcely any reason or authority for its action.’

Therefore, the decision in Dobbs restores the nation’s federal system in a way that respects the language and spirit of the US Constitution. When the issue of abortion is left to the people of the respective States, some States will legalise abortion and others will not. Actually, most American States now allow for abortion on demand. They presently outnumber pro-life states eighteen to thirteen, while the rest have neither an immediate ban nor a codification in place.

In contrast, in Putin’s Russian Federation, the population has limited access to abortion services and abortive drugs. We wonder whether Putin’s fascination with Harris’ smile is an instinctive reaction to a policy, which at present, would not pass the Russian Parliament. It is certainly a policy which Ms Harris is keen to support even if it leads to the breakup of America. And there is nothing to smile about that!

Gabriël A. Moens AM is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and served as pro vice-chancellor and dean at Murdoch University. 

Augusto Zimmermann is professor and head of law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education and served as associate dean at Murdoch University. He is also a former commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia.

Zimmermann & Moens are the authors of The Unlucky Country (Locke Press, 2024).