Kamala Harris and the Inevitable Return of ‘Not That Woman’
Every time a female candidate seeks the presidency, people swear they'd love to see a woman lead–just not that woman.
Americans are, for only the second time in history, standing at the brink of that undiscovered country: the one where a woman is in charge. Perhaps now Sri Lankans (the first citizenry to elect a female national leader) will stop snickering. Perhaps the U.S. will finally win some respect from the Finns, who have elected four female leaders already. Maybe the largest economy in the world could catch up with Pakistan—currently ranked 142 of 146 countries for gender inequality—and vote in at least one female leader.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]But don’t bet on it.
When the popular Christian author and podcaster Jen Hatmaker posted her support for Kamala Harris on social media, the reaction from her largely female following was swift, large, and familiar. There was plenty of cheerleading, with a liberal dose of LFGs (Let’s Freaking Go). And then there was the other refrain: Not her.
Read More: The Scramble to Define Kamala Harris Before Republicans Do It for Her
“I’m all for a woman, but definitely not her!” wrote one follower. “KH is the last person I want to think of as the first woman POTUS,” wrote another. “I would love a strong woman in office that is qualified to improve things for ALL hard working Americans,” began yet another. For women old enough to have lived through previous election cycles that flirted with electing a female head of state, these sentiments were as predictable as arthritis. And about as welcome.
Every time a woman draws near to getting the top job, it occurs to a certain percentage of voters, male and female, that while they, of course, are deeply committed to female leadership, they simply cannot countenance the particular female who is vying for leadership on that occasion. This was true, memorably, of people’s reaction to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. And to Elizabeth Warren during the 2020 primary race. But it’s not limited to one side of the political divide. People felt that way about Nikki Haley—that she was uniquely wrong for the job. People really felt that way about Sarah Palin. (Although in that case they may have had a point.)
When asked why the woman in contention for leadership is especially problematic, objectors sometimes point to quibbles that have nothing to do with an ability to serve and in no way would disqualify a man. Haley was forced to defend her husband’s absence from the campaign trail (he was serving in the military), but Bill Clinton was re-elected despite plausible reports of infidelity. Questions about the birth of Palin’s most recent child triggered a media firestorm, but plenty of politicians have lied about their family circumstances, including Ronald Reagan, who insisted his daughter Patti, born seven months after his marriage to Nancy, was premature. Harris has been declared unfit by some for not having biological children, which didn’t seem to be a dealbreaker for George Washington, James Polk, or Warren Harding, to name a few.
Read More: Read Kamala Harris’ Statement on Biden Dropping Out
It’s 2024, so a lot of women are hoping we are past the era where a woman’s candidacy can be dismissed because of the way her face looks, or because she was tough on her staff and once ate salad with a comb, or because she was insensitive about her ancestry, or because her spouse with an Italian name didn’t want to release his tax returns. These used to be mountains in the way of women’s electoral path, but time and perspective have (please God?) restored their molehill status.
Then again, many women had hoped we were past the era where people hid their bias behind a concern about qualifications, a suggestion that women may have had a little extra fuel added to their rise because of their sex, and that there maaaaay be ability gaps that will only emerge when things get difficult. Yet Harris’s candidacy has brought the qualifications phantom back into full display. A Republican congressman wasted no time in declaring that Harris was originally selected as Vice President only because she checks some boxes. “One hundred percent she is a DEI hire,” said Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett, referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the programs and policies intended to promote the representation and participation of people from different groups. “Her record is abysmal at best.”
More difficult to surmount than any of these, however, is the fatal character flaw of being just plain unlikable. Unlikability is a difficult trait to diagnose, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that in women, it’s usually comorbid with assertiveness and ambition. Academic studies have actually discovered the formula behind this phenomenon: the closer a woman gets to power, the less likable she is. In 1984 an aide to then Vice President George H.W. Bush called Geraldine Ferraro “too bitchy” after the VP candidates debated. It hasn’t changed much. Haley was accused of being rude, unnecessarily combative, and “a little too aggressive” during primary debates. Her opponent Ron DeSantis, meanwhile, was “sharp and feisty.” Donald Trump said that “Nikki suffers from something that’s a very tough thing to suffer from: She’s overly ambitious.” This from a guy who sought—and won—the presidency after making his name by firing people on TV.
It’s no coincidence that, while female candidates have certainly won in their own right, many of the women who have succeeded—or even come close—to political leadership are wives of other leaders. Elizabeth Dole, Isabel Peron, Mireya Moscoso, and Corazon Aquino became prominent by proxy. Stature was accorded to them via the more acceptable qualities in women: loyalty, sacrifice, industry, and poise. This doesn’t mean they weren’t leadership material: it just means they were not ruled out early in the process by the public threshing machine that sends ambitious women off to the chaff pile. It’s not foolproof; Clinton had that advantage, but made the strategic error of running for the U.S. Senate and winning, so her aspirations and assertiveness, plus her stated unwillingness to bake cookies, were well-known.
There’s no denying Harris’ ambition or aggression either. The latter term is loaded—and often weaponized—when it comes to women of color, but it would be surprising if a former district attorney, state attorney general, and U.S. Senator were not long on the A-words. It may not matter. We’ve a veritable buffet of distinguished women run for the U.S. presidency–a former presidential spouse who also had foreign policy and Senate experience, a former Secretary of Transportation and of Labor, a Senator with a strong grasp of data and a history of supporting the little guy, a former governor of a southern state and U.N. ambassador, a young war veteran, a Fortune 50 CEO – and none of them have gotten the nod. There was something about all those women that just didn’t feel presidential. So Harris might as well lean into who she is. Maybe the lady with the loud laugh and the “Mr. Vice President I’m speaking” refusal to be interrupted will be the one who gets there in the end.
If not, and the U.S political system continues to eliminate from consideration any woman with the gall and the nerve and the arrogance to compete for leadership, there is still a way forward. Since a vanishingly small number of people are opposed to the idea of a women as President, if only the right one would step up, then all America needs to do is find one talented, maternal, attractive, courageous, qualified, politically savvy woman with an impeccable spouse and lots of experience who does not actually want to be President, and then persuade her to run. But you know, not too hard.