ANALYSIS — There’s plenty of things to criticize Vice President Kamala Harris for, and she may not win the presidential election, but shaming her to release detailed policy proposals or suggesting that she might lose without them is silly.

The only people that think Harris needs more detailed policies are Republicans who want more material to criticize and reporters or editors who have forgotten how elections work.

Typically, candidates are rewarded for their vagueness because there are fewer details to upset or alienate voters. In 2016, Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan worked because it was vague. Voters could project whatever they wanted onto the slogan, as I told The Wall Street Journal this weekend. It worked eight years ago, nearly worked in 2020 and was probably going to work again in 2024 until Democrats switched up their ticket.

Barack Obama’s “Hope” and “Change” in 2008 and George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism in 2000 are other examples of successful vagueness. In 2020, Joe Biden won because he wasn’t Trump, not because of white papers. I’d challenge anyone to recall specific, detailed policies that any of those men proposed in those elections. And I’d challenge anyone to name a candidate who lost an election because of a lack of detailed policies.

Candidates need some policy ideas to demonstrate their vision and direction for the country, but details really aren’t required. Harris has released some initial ideas including federal limits on price increases at grocery stores, construction of 3 million new housing units over four years, $25,000 down payment assistance for first-time home buyers, making a $3,600 per child tax credit permanent for eligible families approved through 2025, and a new $6,000 tax credit for those with newborn children. In her convention speech, Harris said she would sign the bipartisan border bill that Trump told Republicans on Capitol Hill to walk away from before the election.

The point is not to argue over whether those policies are good or bad, paid for or unfunded, realistic or not. The point is that she has released ideas that give voters a sense of her priorities and her leadership. And independent voters will likely decide based on whether they trust Harris more than Trump and have confidence she can be a strong and effective leader for the next four years, rather than knowing more specifics about those policies.

By asking for more details, Harris is being held to a different standard than Trump. The 2024 all-caps platform written by Trump for the Republican Party includes, “CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY,” “MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR!” and “UNITE OUR COUNTRY BY BRINGING IT TO NEW AND RECORD LEVELS OF SUCCESS.” And yet there isn’t the same drumbeat of calls for Trump to explain these policy goals in great detail.

Being labeled as a candidate who is unserious and incapable of leading a country is more politically dangerous than the lack of detailed policy proposals. And that might ultimately be the point of the GOP attacks about details, but Republicans are going to attack everything Harris has done or said, or will say or do. Reporters and editors don’t have to play along.

The frustration with Harris’ lack of details seems to be connected with the media’s frustration about her lack of access. The vice president should talk to reporters and answer questions as a part of a functioning democracy, but the media isn’t doing itself any favors by telegraphing a desire to dive into policy details, discussions and standards that won’t be required of Trump.

There’s limited incentive for Harris to grant interviews, and she’s less likely to be punished by voters as long as she remains public and active through campaign events and social media.