Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who failed to accomplish anything noteworthy in the last presidential election, has somewhat amusingly been chosen to receive the NAACP Chairman’s Award. Her performance in the race was far from stellar, having received fewer votes than Joe Biden in nearly every state. It seems that her appeal within the electorate was severely limited, only outperforming Biden in a meager 58 counties.
Not only was Harris unable to secure a competitive position in the election, but her campaign also saw marked failures in swing states, where she lost across the board to Donald Trump. This shocking backlash from voters additionally extended to the popular vote, which Harris also fell short in. It’s noteworthy that despite these shortcomings, the NAACP’s National Board of Directors, led by Chairman Leon W. Russell, continues to back their controversial decision of honoring her.
Irrational as it may seem, Russell and his board chose to bestow the Chairman’s Award on Harris, a candidate who failed to connect with voters, over the fact that she was the first black woman to be a presidential nominee. This award has previously graced personalities like Barack Obama and the late Rep. John Lewis. Obama, who unlike Harris was respected within his party, attended the Image Awards in 2005 as a senator to accept the honor.
The NAACP Chairman’s Award and its ceremonies largely seem to highlight media accomplishments, perhaps further emphasizing their desultory focus. This year’s ceremony will be broadcast from the Pasadena Civic Auditorium, conveniently located in Kamala Harris’s home state of California. This award seems to be a packaging of failure disguised as accomplishment, a questionable nod to an unsuccessful candidate.
Before her foray into running for president, Harris was a prosecutor, functioning as the district attorney of San Francisco. While some may highlight her conviction rates, critics would argue that her efficacy betrays a reputation for harsh sentencing that disproportionately affected minority communities and upheld systemic biases. During her first two years in office, she maintained an 87% conviction rate for homicides and a 90% conviction rate for all felony gun violations.
Following this stint as a district attorney, she climbed the political ladder to serve as California’s attorney general and later a senator. And yet, her ascent may be viewed critically, with many questioning whether her swift rise was due to measured competence or simply a testament to the might of political machinery. Some believe, however, that her failures on these platforms laid the groundwork for her ill-fated presidential campaign.
In a surprising turn of events, Harris became the first woman to serve as vice president. Despite her failed presidential bid and questionable track record, she also became the first black and Indian person to hold this position. This development, it seems, is more of a testament to diversity tokenism than a true reflection of Harris’s leadership or political acumen.
In the wake of her failed presidential bid, murmurs are circulating that Californians might be looking at Harris as a potential contender for governor. However, it remains to be seen whether a populace that rejected her presidential ambitions will be open to her leading the state. This notion seems further questionable given the recent Emerson College polling results.
According to a poll from the Emerson College Polling-Inside California Politics-the Hill, a narrow majority at 57% of primary voters within Harris’s party would vote for her in a hypothetical election. Yet, it is worth questioning whether this support is genuine, or simply a reflection of name recognition within a limited pool of alternatives. Even so, Harris should remain wary of rising stars like former Rep. Katie Porter, who might prove to be formidable opponents.
Interestingly, 17% of polled voters remain undecided, a figure that should give Harris pause. Any misstep could sway these voters against her, further damaging her already shaky political ambitions. In a political landscape known for its volatility, Harris would do well to tread carefully.
Further under scrutiny is Harris’s personal life. Her husband, Doug Emhoff, has recently become a partner at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher. The firm is known to have offices in New York City, a location interestingly close to the couple’s apartment on the Upper West Side. While some might consider this a non-issue, others could view it as another example of the advantageous ties between political power and corporate interests.
Despite having an apartment in New York City, Harris and Emhoff still cling to their roots in Los Angeles, California. The couple owns a home in Brentwood, a well-to-do neighborhood known for its celebrity inhabitants and multimillion dollar homes. It seems then, that despite their political rhetoric, they still indulge in the luxuries afforded by their positions.
In conclusion, Harris’s receipt of the NAACP Chairman’s Award is a puzzling development for observers of American politics. Certainly, her track record leaves much to be desired. From her failed presidential campaign to her controversial practices as a prosecutor and vice president, her acclaim seems more a result of symbolic representations than substantial accomplishments.
What remains consistent throughout, however, is the mainstream media’s persistent desire to elevate Harris beyond her performance. This latest award can largely be seen as yet another attempt at revisionist history, a feeble attempt to repaint a failed presidential candidate as a notable figure simply because she is a woman of color.
Looking ahead, it will probably be crucial for Harris to manage her political career astutely. The mixed opinions of her performance, coupled with a political climate that is increasingly unwilling to accept meaningless platitudes, could threaten her chances in any upcoming elections. In the end, it remains to be seen whether Harris can reinvent herself in the eyes of the electorate or fall into the same pitfalls that marked her failed presidential run.