The year 2020 marked a century since the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, a historic day commemorating women’s suffrage. In what many saw as a questionable alignment, Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic vice-presidential nomination the next day. While some claim that Harris, the first woman of color to be nominated for the role by a major party, was continuing the path of groundbreaking women, her actions, policies, and approach remain subjects of controversy.
Now, Harris has her sights set on the highest office in the country—presidency. However, due to her competition and a multitude of other factors, the groundbreaking nature of her campaign has been largely ignored or undermined. This is mainly because she’s contesting against a rather present-focused candidate like Donald Trump, whose blunders often become an issue for others to deal with.
The Democrats have framed the 2024 elections as a fight for the survival of America’s democracy. However, this spins a tale that overlooks the party’s significant flaws and shifts the focus to their contender, conveniently labeled a ‘dictator’ despite donning the Republican banner. Interestingly, for a campaign heralded on history-making, Harris seems to minimize references to her gender or race.
In a curious deviation from her groundbreaking narrative, her campaign tends to concentrate on her upbringing and its socioeconomic facets. She presses forward in her presidential quest, letting the matter of her possible trend-setting candidacy fade into the backdrop. This approach of sidelining her gender and race is a stark contrast from the Democrats’ previous ‘I’m with her’ campaign.
Interestingly, Harris has not centered her campaign on what many would consider fundamental feminist concerns. While it is true that matters like reproductive rights and care-related issues are part of her platform, Harris has not chosen to make her individual identity a central pillar of her campaign. Whether such a move indicates progress or suggests pandering to the masses, is a question that remains.
It is fair to question the sense of complacency that stems from the perception of ‘making history’. The danger lies in the disregard for the vulnerable nature of rights. Perhaps such realization influenced Harris’ campaign strategy. Rather than focusing on the symbolism of her candidacy, she chose to emphasize the potential implications of her holding office.
Harris has claimed her candidacy revolves around the belief that she is most equipped to navigate America in this moment, regardless of her race and gender. However, elements of doubt creep in when her campaign appears disoriented and pessimistic, especially when she begins drawing more attention than her opponent.
Throughout her campaign, Harris often accentuated the distinctions between herself and Trump. Her speeches were laden with warnings about potential repercussions of a second Trump term. While her purported goal was to ‘turn the page’, it appeared as though preventing a particular future was more important to her than the history she was supposedly trying to create.
In the pursuit of power, campaign officials insist that Harris is unconcerned with being the first woman president. Rather, they suggest she is more invested in ensuring she’s not the last. Yet, it is important to critically evaluate these claims in the face of active campaigning and political narratives. The question that remains is whether this makes a compelling call for leadership or if it merely serves as a convenient tactic for legitimizing her political ambition.