As I stood in front of the White House for Kamala Harris’ rally in Washington D.C., the hypocrisy was hard to miss. Harris, a vocal opponent of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, had constructed her own wall to shield her rally from the public.
So, I decided to ask her supporters the obvious question: if walls are unnecessary at the border, why are they suddenly needed to protect a political event? The responses I received were as mixed as they were revealing.
Most Harris supporters I spoke with rationalised the need for this security perimeter, arguing that “politicians need protection.” One attendee explained, “Given the kind of vitriol in the country right now, that’s not inappropriate.” But when I pushed them on whether this kind of security was equally important for the country’s southern border, the support for walls seemed to quickly erode.
I questioned another Harris supporter about this double standard, and they brushed it off, saying, “She’s the Vice President of the United States and should be secure, like any other diplomat.” The answer didn’t surprise me, but it raised a critical question: if Harris’s safety is worth securing with a wall, why not secure American citizens in border states facing daily threats from illegal crossings? For some reason, walls work at a D.C. rally but not at our southern border.
One woman went so far as to claim that these security measures are necessary due to recent political violence — violence that, she argued, is primarily “coming from the right.” She pointed to January 6th, claiming, “We didn’t need walls before January 6th. Now we need walls outside of rallies.” But, interestingly, the barriers were put up only hours before Harris’s rally, specifically for her protection. When I pointed this out, it seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Throughout the day, I noted a clear trend: while Harris supporters were quick to defend this “temporary wall,” many couldn’t or wouldn’t apply the same logic to the border wall that Trump advocated. When I brought this up, the usual response was that my question was “oversimplistic.” One man responded, “Walls clearly work if she’s building a wall to protect her event.” And he’s right — yet he didn’t seem to see the irony.
I also spoke with a few Harris backers about diversity at political rallies, specifically mentioning that Trump rallies tend to attract a wide range of demographics — white, Black, Latino, Muslim, and Jewish Americans. Some brushed this off as “false,” claiming that Trump’s rhetoric has only divided the country. However, having attended numerous rallies myself, as part of my tour across America, I’ve seen that diversity firsthand. One attendee acknowledged that the main reason for supporting Harris was simply being “anti-Trump.”
Ultimately, my time outside Harris’s rally confirmed what I’ve observed in much of today’s political climate. Harris supporters defend security walls when it benefits them directly but remain opposed to walls that could protect Americans on a national scale. With the 2024 election now just around the corner, this rally highlighted the very real divide in values — and the blatant contradictions that Harris’s supporters seem willing to ignore.
Follow Avi’s journey across America:
SPONSOR
