Opinion | ‘Get Off the Fence,’ Bret Stephens

Bret Stephens, a journalist, expressed uncertainty about voting for Kamala Harris in a tight election against Donald Trump. His hesitation has drawn criticism, as some argue that his indecision could encourage others to withhold their votes, potentially benefiting Trump. Critics emphasize that in a two-candidate race, the focus should be on which candidate poses less risk to American democracy. They urge Stephens to take a definitive stance and use his influence to encourage voter participation in favor of Harris. In his column, Stephens raised several policy questions he believes should be addressed by Harris, highlighting the need for substantive discussions in the political arena. He contrasts this with Donald Trump's approach, which he claims has been characterized by falsehoods and personal attacks rather than meaningful policy discourse. This comparison underscores the importance of evaluating candidates based on their ability to engage with critical issues facing the nation. The ongoing debate reflects broader concerns about voter engagement and the responsibilities of public figures in shaping electoral outcomes. As the election approaches, the pressure mounts on influential voices like Stephens to clarify their positions and encourage informed voting. The stakes are high, as every vote could significantly impact the future of American democracy. Ultimately, the discourse surrounding Stephens' indecision highlights the complexities of modern electoral politics, where the implications of each vote are magnified. The call for clarity and commitment in voting choices is more crucial than ever, as the nation grapples with pivotal issues that will define its democratic landscape.