"Prosecutors may still be stigmatized as administrators of racial inequality, but that reputation will perhaps be upstaged..."

"... by the opportunity for public servants to make a name for themselves as fundamentally different kinds of prosecutors, championing measures that are more rehabilitative than punitive. Some have perceived [Kamala] Harris’s conversion to progressive prosecutor as opportunistic, but it is not entirely out of keeping with her record or with evolving public opinion, to which she and other politicians are responsive. And her leadership, as Vice-President, in enacting reform could confirm that prosecution is renewing itself as a noble path to the highest offices, with the ambition to govern by having criminal justice govern less. At the same time, in the wake of Democratic losses in congressional and state elections, some legislators have raised questions about the possibly negative effects of progressive ideas, particularly calls to defund the police. As Democrats evaluate the election results, concerns about achieving majorities might temper some enthusiasm for reform."

From "Kamala Harris and the Noble Path of the Prosecutor" by Jeannie Suk Gersen (in The New Yorker). 

I was surprised to read this statement of Gersen's: "When I was in law school, twenty years ago, prosecution was a form of public service that was thought to carry little controversial baggage." 

When I went to law school, 20 years before that, I heard the clear message, stated absolutely, that if you wanted to go into public interest law, you should never at any phase in your career take any job in prosecution. It would make you toxic to people of the left. 

But who can check the accuracy of messages people remember detecting in the distant past? In the present, I understand the motivation to put Kamala Harris in a flattering light. 

And yet, what puts her in the best light — progressive ideas or law and order? Which way would it be better to skew if what she wants is to win the presidential election in 2024?