Kamala Harris: A Cautionary Revisit

The mainstream media should take a hard look at itself before it declares Kamala Harris “struggling to define herself.”

It hasn’t been the main focus of the news this week. But the mainstream media is clearly becoming attached to the idea that Kamala Harris is “struggling” in her role as Vice President.

The New York Times piece whose headline I screenshot above, for example, cites low approval ratings (I’ll have something to say about polls in another piece,) and describes Democrats as being in a “panic” over whether Kamala will be a “political liability” for a Biden/Harris ticket. “In private conversations”(none of which are quoted directly) “dozens of Democrats” say she has not “risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, much less the country.“ “I can’t think of one thing she’s done except stay out of the way and stand beside him at certain ceremonies,” says Dem fundraiserJohn Morgan, in one of the few direct quotes in the piece.

Of course, staying out of the way is largely what VP’s are supposed to do (I haven’t seen any headlines about Mike Pence’s recessive role in Trump’s presidency.) And if Kamala had tried to overshadow Biden, she’d be subjected to those ever-at-the-ready “aggressive,” “overly-ambitious” woman tropes. But why isn’t becoming a national champion for reproductive rights considered a leadership role? I think we know the answer to that. It’s the same reason why the media (and the pollsters) were caught looking stupid the day after the mid-terms. Women’s issues are still “other” for them—but not for the voters.

It’s still early. But knowing as well as I do how quickly headlines can become entrenched narratives—I wrote a book about the 2016 election (enough said)—and from there self-fulfilling prophecies, I don’t think it’s too soon to sound an alarm about Kamala coverage.

So I’m taking a moment out from my run-down of the films nominated for this year’s Oscars, to repost a piece I wrote when Kamala was running for President. The complaints about Kamala then were different, but provide both a glimpse into the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position women leaders are put in, and the damage that media narrativizing can do.

Take it as a cautionary revisiting.

********************************

It was April 8, 2019 and I was in a rage all day about the coverage of the men versus the women. I don't think I'd been so angry since collecting my sources for The Destruction of Hillary Clinton. They included an enormous stack of Hillary-bashing articles, a stack that had grown even larger when I updated for the paperback. Although two years had passed since I published the book, it was seeming as though not enough had changed.

Even seemingly positive pieces didn’t seem able to resist the implication that something is, well, wrong, about the woman who “leans in” too much.

That day, I was reading the first “big” piece I’d seen about Kamala Harris: “Kamala Takes Her Shot”, written by Elizabeth Weil for The Atlantic. It’s possible, I suppose, that Weil thought she was complimenting Harris when she wrote that “Harris is graciously, militarily on point,” Gracious…on point,” sound like compliments. But Militarily? And the martial metaphor continues: “All good politicians stick to a script, but Harris speaks like a woman who knows that facts are ammunition.” Right. Just load ‘em up and “take your shot”!

Am I making too much about some harmless metaphors? Maybe. But I remembered the piece and the metaphors later, after the second debate, during which Kamala sharply rebuked Joe Biden for his earlier stand on bussing. Invoking her own history as a little girl who stood waiting to be bussed across town, Kamala both disarmed and charmed. The result was an initial surge in ratings and funding. But Joe Biden was beloved by many older Democrats, particularly older blacks, and Kamala was so…uh…aggressive. It didn’t take long for the image of the Mean Prosecutor, viciously “attacking” Uncle Joe (the word “attack” came up time and again in the press) to supplant sympathy for the little girl. (Funny, I don’t remember anyone rising to Hillary’s defense when Bernie attacked her for a Crime Bill that she didn’t even have a vote on—and that he voted for.)

But back to Weil’s April piece. Later on, she switches from martial imagery to a trope that will be familiar to those who followed press coverage of Hillary Clinton. “Even sitting with Maya [her sister], post-barbecue, in a corridor of a black church in South Carolina before a town hall—when Harris is laughing and slightly slouched in her chair, seemingly relaxed—she’s a woman who maintains a tight grip on the narrative.” “Tight.” “Grip.” Only “seeming” relaxed. (In fact, always on her guard, always prepared.) I can’t help but recall how Chuck Todd accused Hillary Clinton for being “over-prepared” after a splendid debate performance—or the many criticisms of her for lack of spontaneity, for being too “scripted” and “controlled.”

Clinton, by the accounts of those who have met her, is in fact a funny, warm—and very “likeable”--person. So is Kamala. And she can cook and dance too. There are many occasions, captured on video and celebrated on Twitter, that show her strutting her stuff, goofing around, playing with kids, and in general exuding the pleasure in life that makes “Joyful Warrior” an appropriate nickname for her. I don’t remember seeing any of those videos on television; I do remember endless footage of Beto O’Rourke being “natural” (perhaps a little too natural) and Joe Biden strolling through his neighborhood with a smile and greeting for everyone.

As it happened, I read Weil’s piece after a day hearing, over and over on television, about Mayor Pete's personal admissions about growing up gay. I’d listened to him myself, admiring his honesty and intelligence. I appreciated and was moved by Pete’s candor about how it feels to grow up in a culture that hates you.

On the other hand, I was also struck by how little attention had been paid to the women’s growing-up stories, and the too-frequent presumption that they’d had it easy—just because they’d achieved so much and were so “professional” now. Were people shocked to hear that Kamala, who always looks so glamorously put-together, had been bussed? How many people know that Elizabeth Warren was not a “privileged white woman” but came from a family on the edge of poverty? All the women candidates have stories about struggling with sexism—and in Kamala’s case, sexism and racism. Maybe, however, they weren’t as eager to share them, remembering how whenever Hillary talked about sexism, she was charged with "playing the woman card”. It wasn’t just Trump; Bernie Sanders, scornful of “identity politics,” took every chance he could to advise people that not just any woman would do (as though her gender was Hillary’s chief credential.)

Besides which, that sexism stuff is so old and boring!! We've been hearing about those “issues” since the 60's! At this point, with the exception of sexual harassment and assault, they enter media consciousness as little more than a kvetch or a nag, if they enter at all. At the same time, however, we’ve barely begun to confront how deeply gendered double-standards still affect electoral politics and media representations.

So yes, I really wanted to say "Bravo" to Pete. But I was held back by my anger at the way the media makes heroes of the men for being "spontaneous" and "personal" while the first thing I learned about an authentically funny, vibrant, and warm candidate like Kamala Harris was that she was some species of control freak, with a “tight grip on her narrative.”

And now Kamala has dropped out of the race, after weeks of (self-fulfilling?) headlines declaring her campaign “unravelling” and “sinking,” (“demonstrated” by “sliding” poll numbers, mostly from the very White early primary states). We’re told that she made various mistakes about what states to concentrate on (shades of Hillary, again) and that her campaign didn’t have enough money to continue. No one on the various diagnostic round-tables mentions inadequate media coverage. We’re even told that she didn’t “connect” with Black voters. That one was is special puzzler, as I belong to several Facebook groups, led by Black women, who adore Kamala. Maybe “Black” needs to be qualified a bit by gender?

Just who has the “tight grip” on the narrative here?