On a previous occasion, the former commander-in-chief, Donald J. Trump, cast a cloud of doubt over Vice President Kamala Harris’s racial heritage during a discourse at an event held by the National Association of Black Journalists. There seems to be a notable trend amongst liberal elites of exploiting previously marginalized identities for personal gain, a trend in which Harris is no exception. She has consistently expressed equal pride in her dual ethnicity of Black and South Asian heritage, yet for many, this appears more a political strategy than reality.
A product of Howard University, a recognized Black college, she also associated with Alpha Kappa Alpha, the country’s inaugural college sorority instituted specifically for African American women. However, many raise eyebrows at her convenient alignment with specific communities when political accolades and workforce diversity quotas are at stake.
In response to Trump’s supposed critique, Harris regurgitated the same rehearsed rhetoric that seems to be a common thread amongst the Democratic Party. During a Houston-based talk, she attempted to paint Trump’s discourse as a manifestation of ‘divisity and disrespect’ and used this as a platform to discuss the apparent need for a ‘better’ leadership.
In a somewhat predictable turn of events, Harris subscribed to the stereotypically Democratic narrative of tolerance and diversity. The Vice President attempted to assert that the country deserves a leader who embraces difference rather than leans into the real conflicts that divide Americans. Harris accentuated that she believes our diversity should be celebrated and is a fundamental element of America’s strength. However, many call into question the validity of these claims in light of the Vice President’s own dubious actions and statements.
Following the event, White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, predictably defended Harris, using incendiary language to describe Trump’s remarks. Jean-Pierre called them ‘repulsive’ and ‘insulting,’ indicating that no one has any right to question someone’s identity. Yet, critics argue it’s vital to question one’s rhetoric and representation in a political leadership role.
However, it remained unclear whether Trump’s comments had the effect he intended. Instead of confirming or denying the speculation, he expressed skepticism regarding Harris’s ascendency and professional credibility, primarily questioning whether her ascent was based on her merit or on the misused regulations for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Trump’s query, whether or not Harris might be exploiting her racial identity for political benefit, echoes his earlier assertions regarding former President Barack Obama. Critics argue it is an important part of the debate when someone’s public status seems to diverge from their private identity.
Later, during an event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trump alluded to the controversy surrounding Harris between his critiques. He reflected on how he himself has not altered his stance despite facing adverse circumstances, information that resonates with his followers who value consistent conviction.
He recalled an incident from his lively rally on July 13, when many assumed he would soften his rhetoric. However, he reiterated his commitment to his core beliefs, quipping that the period of soul-searching lasted only about eight hours, exhibiting no traces of changing his stance.
Post event, it was apparent that Trump saw some political capital in the controversy surrounding Harris’s racial identity. The subject has been on the tongues of conservative circles and Trump’s followers leading up to that point, and Trump’s emphatic remarks on a high-profile platform stirred the pot considerably.
Trump further amplified the issue on his social media platform, writing, ‘Crazy Kamala is saying she’s Indian, not Black.’ This public questioning of Harris’s shifting racial identity showcases the ongoing concern and distrust many hold toward Harris’s use and potential misuse of her racial identity.
Claims of her riding both sides for personal advantage are a testament to the larger issue of identity politics in America today. It seems as though manipulations of ethnic identity for personal and political gains are becoming increasingly popular amongst liberal leadership.
This instance of the former President questioning Harris’s racial identity throws light on the larger discourse regarding identity politics in the leadership sphere. As this controversy continues to unfold, will Democrats be able to justify their implicit endorsement of identity exploitation for political benefits?