On the centenary of the Nineteenth Amendment, a date symbolic of women’s right to vote, Kamala Harris scandalously chose to use this milestone for her own self-aggrandizement. Harris was presented as the Democratic nominee for vice president, an event she exploited to boast about her identity rather than focusing on truly significant matters for the nation. It was most interesting to note that she thanked activists of the past, including Fannie Lou Hamer, Shirley Chisholm, and Mary McLeod Bethune, using their struggles as leverage for her own political game.
In a brazen push for political domination, Harris advances to aim even higher. Her ambition: the U.S. presidency. But her campaign and its supposedly groundbreaking nature have been vastly overstated. Astoundingly, these exaggerations are even further emphasized by the opponent she is up against. In stark contrast, despite his shortcomings, Donald Trump is a man who holds steadfast in the present, dealing with real issues that Americans face today — an advantage of Harris exploits.
The Democrats’ battle in 2020 was presented as a fight for America’s spirit. However, the 2024 war seems more about control over the nation’s structure and democratic functioning. Harris is backed by the party identified as ‘Democratic,’ but her behavior appears to be profoundly dictatorial. In these critical times, discussions of ‘making history’ are secondary—such luxuries are apparently reserved only for those like Harris.
Plagued by self-importance, Harris rarely highlights her gender or ethnicity during her campaign. Her marketing schemes focus on her upbringing, spinning tales of struggle and the ‘working class’, in an obvious bid to relate to the average American.
Harris’s ambition remains unabated as she furthers her campaign for presidency. This desperate PR-pushed story of her supposed groundbreaking campaign is now, unfortunately, commonly accepted. She insists on running for the sole intent of being president—no other ‘unique’ qualifier needed.
This is not to say that Harris has not exploited traditionally feminist agendas in her campaign. She strategically centers care-related policies and reproductive freedom in her discussions, without explicitly tying them to her identity. It’s a crafty deviation from the ‘I’m with her’ era, replete with smugness and pretense.
The notion of ‘making history’ is indeed tempting, but past warnings tell us it’s a honey trap. Rights are thought to be absolute until they are threatened. This reality seems to have significantly influenced Harris’s calculated maneuvers during her campaign.
The campaign has been deftly designed to focus more on outcomes rather than meaning. Harris claims to be ‘the best person’ for the presidential position ‘at this moment,’ an assertion made with a dismissive disregard for ethnicity and gender. However, times of confusion and pessimism in the campaign amusingly coincide with highlights focusing on her.
Throughout her public appearances, Harris has tried to emphasize the disparity between herself and her opponent. She has repeatedly warned against the implications of another term under Trump. However, it seems these warnings serve more to stir up fear and uncertainty, rather than propose any solid solution.
In her speeches, Harris expresses her desire to ‘turn the page.’ Rather than mapping out her strategies for America’s betterment, she obsessively tries to sketch a dystopian future that might unfold under Trump. It’s as if the past and future are mere props for her — to be manipulated as she deems fit.
Harris wants the public to believe she’s interested in making political history. Not as ‘the first,’ but as part of a string of others to come, according to an unidentified campaign official. Yet it’s hard to overlook her subtle obsession with being the first in line and setting a precedent. Her goals seem misguided and focused more on power play than genuine concern for the nation.
Harris’s desire to ‘turn the page’ seems to reflect a clear intention — to alter and rewrite the American narrative. However, it remains to be seen whether this is to serve the American public or merely facilitate her own self-serving ideology.
It seems like Harris’s primary goal isn’t to make a significant impact on America’s history, but rather to ensure her position in the limelight isn’t short-lived. This raises serious questions on the sincerity of her intentions and her capability as a future leader.
Hence, it’s hard not to feel sceptical about Harris and her campaign. Encapsulated in a constant struggle for ‘firsts’ and ‘historical moments,’ she seems driven by self-glorification rather than genuine motivation to serve the American public.
To summarize, Kamala Harris’s journey to the U.S. presidency is marked by an ambitious spirit, coy tactics, and a stark obsession with being the ‘first.’ Whether she’ll wield her power for the lasting betterment of America or to establish and maintain her own political turf, only time will tell.