In her adoption of a swathe of Trumpian policies, only the naive would believe Kamala Harris had experienced some Damascene conversion.

Notwithstanding this, there have been no protests – not even a peek – from Democrat notables.

The explanation is that Democrat powerbrokers are agreed on three points.

First, there is no question that Ms Harris remains  a radical leftist but that, for electoral purposes, she is playing a chameleon, something to which she is accustomed as recounted in Peter Schweitzer’s Profiles in Corruption.

Second, given her inability to handle a challenging interview, it is better to exclude her, as Biden was, from most of the normal cut-and-thrust of the election.

Third, given the corruption of the greater part of the mainstream media, who now act as the Democrat propaganda arm, they will provide cover on both points.

As to the real Kamala Harris, the National Review editor-in-chief, Rich Lowry, slams  Ms Harris as ‘weak’ and ‘a phony’, one who  doesn’t truly care about ‘the country or the middle class’, a ‘shape-shifting opportunist’ who ‘can and will change’ on ‘almost anything when politically convenient’.

Even if when she is saying something popular, i.e. Trumpian, Lowry insists she cannot ‘be trusted to hold to it once she’s in office’. Democrat grandees are no doubt  delighted with this.

This election is of singular importance. It is a fork in the road, and not only for America. On the one side is the MAGA doctrine, on the other, the Obama doctrine for the managed decline of the US and the West, the core of which is the continued appeasement  of the Beijing-Moscow-Tehran axis.

Associated is the endorsement of the new far-left ideology, spread by the march of Newcoms (new communists) through America’s institutions, beginning with education and ultimately extending even onto the boards of some of the great corporations.

The core has been the anti-Western, discredited dogmas of climate catastrophism and critical race and gender theory.

In the meantime, an open border policy is designed to lock in millions of future Democrat voters.

Ms Harris began her simulation of Trumpian policy with her blatant copying of ending the taxing of tips. This was despite her breaking the tie in the Senate to enable the IRS, among other things, to pursue taxpayers receiving that important part of their remuneration, tips.

Based on Trump’s policy, very popular in the battleground state of Nevada and with legislation already introduced by Senator Cruz, she failed even to acknowledge that she had taken their policy.

Following this, she 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.

The impact was such that Senator Cruz jocularly referred to White House leaks that she planned to dye her hair blonde and her skin orange, while wearing enormously long red ties at future appearances.

On closer examination, the border change was not as Trumpian as she suggested.

Harris says Trump persuaded Republican senators to block a so-called bipartisan immigration bill, one she says she will sign on day one of her presidency.

But as Mark Levin points out, it entrenches ‘catch and release’, instead of Trump’s policy of requiring aspring immigrants to stay in Mexico until a decision is made, a policy overruled by an executive order signed by Biden. Capping this off, illegals will have work permits and taxpayer-funded lawyers.

This  continues and legitimises the Biden-Harris policy of opening the border and letting the drug cartels bring in over ten million illegal immigrants including criminals and terrorists, as well as vast amounts of the drug fentanyl.

For those four years, she and Biden undermined or, to use a term from the English Civil War, dispensed with immigration law. When two English kings tried that, one lost his throne and the other his head. But Biden and Harris were not even impeached.

Meanwhile there has been one last, desperate use of lawfare to stop Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith, whose appointment has been ruled invalid by a Florida court, filed yet another indictment against Donald Trump over his challenge to the results of the 2020 presidential election. The indictment obviously attempts to navigate around the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity for official acts.

As it cannot be heard before the election, Smith’s action is obviously political and  unlikely to affect the vote.

Meanwhile, the so-called interview on CNN was purely a propaganda broadcast, with Harris insisting on her vice presidential nominee being there to save her and that it be prerecorded, no doubt so that it could be edited. Harris had ready-made answers and frequently referred to a crib sheet which seemed to follow the order of the questions.She did not need to search for the answer. This suggested she had notice of the questions.

Harris was allowed long, uninterrupted, unchallenged answers and she received very few follow-up questions. It would have been wiser not to have done this. Americans will only compare it with Trump’s continuing availability for questioning, his obvious ad-libbing, his detailed disclosure of his agenda and the fact that in his last term, he donated his salary to various federal agencies.

Meanwhile, the united front of the anti-Trump media propaganda arm is weakening.The comments above by Rich Lowry were in the New York Times. X, previously Twitter, is now under Elon Musk and is a bastion of free speech.

And Mark Zuckerberg seems to be breaking ranks. He has apologised for giving in to White House pressure to censor comments on Covid, and for accepting FBI advice that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation. He declares that he will not repeat his  2020 contribution of  $400 million to what many saw as  Democrat fronts.

Meanwhile, Trump is constantly on the road, speaking to the people. His contributions are accessible on the internet.

He remains the hope of America and the West.