Introduction
With the election approaching, The New York Times published an article suggesting that the challenge Vice President Kamala Harris faces with the electorate may not be due to her policies but to the fact that she is a woman. According to the publication, gender has become one of the central themes of the election, and many Democrats believe Harris is facing a more subtle but deeply rooted form of sexism. Unlike the blatant attacks of the past, she is now labeled as either “too aggressive” or “too emotional,” highlighting society’s ongoing ambivalence and complexity in addressing women in power. However, while gender appears relevant, many critics question whether focusing on identity issues diverts attention from topics that genuinely impact the American public, such as the economy and healthcare.
This article examines the debate surrounding Harris’s candidacy, exploring how gender serves as both a barrier and a banner, while discussing how Democrats are attempting to balance identity issues with the real needs of the electorate.
The Weight of Gender in American Politics
Kamala Harris is not the first woman to face public resistance based on gender, but her case is considered unique by many Democratic supporters. In an analysis by The New York Times, many pointed out that Harris deals with a type of resistance that is no longer overtly sexist but remains deeply influenced by biases regarding “appropriate” behavior for a woman. Harris’s supporters see this resistance as an evolution of classic sexism, a disguised prejudice that consistently demands Harris to prove her qualifications more frequently and intensely than her male peers. To many, this constitutes a new face of sexism, not relying on explicit insults but imposing a different level of scrutiny on women.
In private discussions, some of Harris’s supporters report difficulties dealing with what they see as silent prejudice. For example, some female supporters say their male friends and partners hesitate to support a woman—especially a Black and South Asian woman—even if they don’t openly admit it. These sentiments, although not explicitly stated, suggest that Harris’s gender significantly influences public perception, at least for some voters.
Harris’s Challenge to Prove Competence and Resilience
Harris faces another significant obstacle: the perception that by making gender one of her campaign’s primary points, she is assuming a victim role. To many critics, the fact that Harris seeks support by emphasizing the difficulties posed by her gender and ethnicity sounds like an admission of weakness. This perception is particularly relevant just days before the election, a critical period in which Harris should be reinforcing her image as a strong and capable leader.
According to some political analysts, this is an unusual strategy at a time when the American population faces serious issues related to cost of living and the economy. With so many urgent topics on the table, one might question whether focusing on Harris’s “victimization” as a woman is truly effective. It’s a risky approach that could alienate voters, especially those more concerned with economic issues, who expect tangible solutions rather than discussions about identity and social perception.
The criticism raises an interesting point: in an era of intense political polarization and economic crisis, it’s risky to use gender as a central pillar of a campaign. This strategy could backfire, reinforcing the notion that the Democrats’ priorities are more aligned with cultural and identity issues than with economic problems. This raises the question: rather than strengthening her candidacy, could this approach be diverting voters’ attention?
The Ironic Solution: “Ken Harris”
One curious reaction to this analysis came from Governor Janet Mills of Maine, who sarcastically suggested that if Harris were a man—“Ken Harris”—perhaps the electorate would view her differently. Although the suggestion was made with irony, it raises a pertinent question about how much public perception of Harris is linked to her gender. Would changing her name, symbolically speaking, really impact how voters see her?
However, the idea of “masculinizing” Harris simply to appease the electorate seems more like a criticism of the political landscape itself than a practical solution. The issue goes beyond a name or image: it reflects the paradox that Harris is simultaneously encouraged to assert herself as a leader while also being forced to moderate her behavior to avoid being seen as “aggressive” or “emotional.” This constant modulation of her image, something rarely required of male politicians, is a testament to the persistent challenge women face in politics.
Substantive Issues vs. Identity Politics
Another important point in the debate is the idea that Democrats should focus on more substantive issues, such as the economy, healthcare, and security. Harris’s approach and that of her supporters could reinforce the impression that the party is more focused on promoting an agenda of identity politics than on addressing tangible problems. For some analysts, this focus on identity politics is one reason why the Democratic party finds it challenging to unify a diverse electorate.
Identity politics is a double-edged sword: on one hand, it creates an emotional connection with voters who share similar experiences and feel represented. On the other hand, it can alienate those who see identity issues as a distraction from real, immediate problems. For critics of Harris’s campaign, this exemplifies the dilemma faced by the Democratic party, struggling to find a balance between promoting diversity and meeting the concrete needs of a population increasingly pressured by the economy.
Gender and racial issues are legitimate and important topics, but in an election period where financial stability and public health are pressing concerns, it’s worth questioning the effectiveness of promoting this agenda as a central focus. Democrats, therefore, need to reevaluate the relevance of their approach, seeking ways to integrate identity issues with practical proposals that make sense to all voters.
The History of Women in American Politics
Despite the continued relevance of gender debates, it’s important to remember that women have been involved in American politics for over a century. The first woman to serve in Congress was Janette Rankin, in 1916, and since then, around 200 women have run for the U.S. presidency. Harris’s candidacy is another chapter in this trajectory, and the fact that she faces resistance is, in itself, not new.
The resistance Harris faces appears to be a modern manifestation of old prejudices. Although society has progressed in many ways, the idea that a woman—especially a woman of mixed ethnicity like Harris—can be a strong leader still encounters barriers. However, many critics argue that attributing Harris’s difficulties solely to gender may oversimplify the situation.
Conclusion
As the election nears, Kamala Harris’s campaign strategy raises a fundamental question about the role of gender and identity in politics. The New York Times and other outlets raise the possibility that Harris is being judged based on veiled biases, but critics argue that focusing on this issue could be counterproductive, distancing voters who expect a more pragmatic and solution-oriented approach.
Harris’s journey reflects the advancement of women in politics but also the persistent challenges they face. The Democrats’ campaign approach, emphasizing identity and social justice issues, needs to balance these themes with the immediate needs of the voters. Thus, Harris’s challenge is not only to win the election but also to prove she can represent both those who see her as an identity advocate and those who expect concrete solutions to the country’s problems.
How the campaign chooses to address these points in the coming weeks could be decisive not only for Harris but for the future of the Democratic party itself. The party’s ability to align its positions with the voters’ real concerns will determine whether it can reinvent itself or remains trapped in debates about identity and gender. At a time when the country faces deep crises, voters, more than ever, need leadership that goes beyond labels and perceptions.
