Just like Kamala, Jeannette Jara avoids answering questions

Kamala Harris (in the United States) and Jeannette Jara (in Chile) use very similar techniques of strategic evasion during interviews and debates. This is not a coincidence: it is a trained communication style typical of campaigns in which a single poorly phrased sentence can cost votes from crucial segments.

Examples of evasion or silence

A report from El Mercurio/EMOL stated that “absolute silence” prevailed within the leadership of the Communist Party of Chile after Jara expressed her “disappointment” with party leader Lautaro Carmona. In other words: she took a critical stance, but the party did not follow up with a clear response. (Emol)

Situation: When asked about the Communist Party’s stance toward Cuba and her own internal dissatisfaction, Jara spoke briefly but did not provide follow-up or detailed explanation.

Meaning: The party’s silence and the lack of public clarification create a sense of ambiguity and lack of transparency.

In another case, it was reported that Jara said it is “very likely” she will suspend or renounce her Communist Party membership if she is elected. (El País)

Situation: Under political and electoral pressure, she avoids giving a direct “yes” or “no,” saying only that it is “likely.”

Meaning: This answer allows her to keep political flexibility, but it also generates uncertainty and may be perceived as evasive.

Regarding international regimes, Jara was asked whether she believes the Cuban government is a dictatorship, and she responded that it is “a different democratic system.” (Revista Oeste)

Situation: This is a sensitive topic for many voters (human rights), and she uses vague terms (“a different democratic system”) instead of a clear stance.

Meaning: This ambiguity protects her from direct criticism but opens space for questioning her clarity.

Interpretive observations

On sensitive issues (human rights, Communist Party ties, international regimes), Jara tends to avoid answers that could generate controversy or be used against her.

Her use of expressions such as “likely,” “under review,” and “we’ll see” indicates a deliberately non-committal style during interviews.

The silence or lack of detailed response from the Communist Party when Jara makes controversial statements shows that part of the message control is being handled collectively or strategically restrained.

The clearest similarities

1. Circular answers anchored in “values”

Both Kamala and Jara respond to difficult questions with broad references such as:

• “what I stand for is…”

• “what matters to working families…”

• “our focus is protecting people…”

They avoid specifics but “sound like they are responding,” maintaining a favorable framing.

2. They avoid detailing controversial numbers

• Kamala avoids repeating spending figures, tax increases, or technical targets.

• Jara avoids specifying funding sources or immediate fiscal impacts.

Concrete details create attack points; ambiguity preserves broad coalitions.

3. They flip the question

They often turn hostile questions into:

• attacks on the opponent, or

• moral statements.

Typical example:

“That’s an important question, because the real issue is that my opponent…”

4. Strong emotional and pace control

Both maintain:

• steady, measured speaking pace,

• tight emotional control,

• long pauses to avoid traps.

This conveys calmness but reinforces the perception of evasion.

5. Pre-formatted answers to avoid headlines

They often seem to answer while thinking:

“How will this be tomorrow’s headline?”

They avoid:

• absolute statements,

• direct verbs (“we will raise…”, “we will cut…”),

• open antagonism.

6. Their ideological background also shapes this

They come from political spaces where:

• communication errors are costly,

• opponents try to label them (“radical left,” “hard-line communist”),

• every sentence can reinforce a caricature.

Programmed ambiguity becomes a survival tool.

7. Lack of full confidence in economic topics

• Kamala is not naturally strong on economic issues.

• Jara is solid in labor and social areas but hesitates on macroeconomics.

Thus they fall back on:

• generic answers,

• narrative framing,

• “values,”

• criticism of the opponent.

In general terms, they follow the same script:

✔ avoid precision

✔ avoid headlines

✔ focus on values

✔ control emotion

✔ answer without answering