As our country reflects on the possibility of a Black woman president, either through Joe Biden stepping down or through the Democratic party selecting Kamala Harris as their nominee, we’re seeing resistance rear its ugly head.
Of course, it would be easy to blame all the resistance to a Black woman presidential nominee on conservatives, who often express outright disdain for proposed civil rights legislation and the inclusion of racially diverse candidates. However, we’d be leaving food on our plates if we only considered resistance from one side. Indeed, there is resistance throughout the political spectrum. Whether Kamala Harris, this nation’s first Black woman Vice President, takes this position or not, our country must confront the racist, sexist attitudes that block Black women’s access to this position of power. One way to make molasses move faster is to heat it. And we can certainly apply the necessary pressure by unpacking the nature of this resistance.
The nature of their resistance
First, let’s confront the conservative resistance to a Black woman president. Just as Republicans launched the birtherism movement, a conspiracy theory questioning the citizenship of Barack Obama, the first Black President, they’ve done the same to Kamala Harris. It’s a movement many are calling “birtherism 2.0.” Beyond surface-level racism, the notion that very few Black candidates have reached this level of political power in American society, this attitude is also inspired by xenophobia. We see, in the birtherism movement, that discrimination immigrants experience, even after becoming naturalized citizens, is passed on to the next generation so that their children also face undue scrutiny. Despite being born in America, attacks on Barack Obama and Kamala Harris’ parental nationality persist.
To become President, multiple generations of one’s family are not required to be born in America. Yet, conservatives cling to this narrative that having parents who are naturalized citizens should disqualify someone from office. The 14th Amendment established that anyone born in the country becomes an American, making citizenship their birthright. To become President, there are only three formal requirements specified in the Constitution: they are at least 35 years old, a natural-born citizen, and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. Kamala Harris, born in Oakland, California 1964, certainly meets each of these qualifications. After high school, she attended Howard University and then law school in San Francisco. Harris became California’s attorney general throughout her career and served in the United States Senate before becoming Vice President. Despite the baseless claims associated with “Birtherism 2.0,” her qualifications are undeniably solid.
What keeps the molasses from flowing in January? Misogynoir has a chilling effect. Conservatives often talk about Kamala Harris as if she were a “monster,” instead of a woman. Of course, this is reminiscent of the historical dehumanization of Black women. Far too often, they’re denied the social grace to express a full range of emotions. If a Black woman smiles often, people will accuse her of being manipulative, and if she refrains from smiling often, people will accuse her of being unfriendly, angry, or cruel. For instance, in 2020, Republican Harlan Hill, someone who self-identified as “a member of the advisory board” of Trump’s campaign, faced backlash for his negative portrayal of Kamala Harris. After facing public scorn for his comments, Hill doubled down, saying, “I stand by the statement that she’s an insufferable power-hungry smug bitch.” While it’s natural to use colorful language against political opponents, using slurs crosses the line — his quote exposes the specific way in which Kamala’s womanhood impacts their attack. Politics is the science of power, so the idea that a Black woman politician wants power is not the problem — their racist resistance to her power is. White men are certainly the last group that can accuse other groups of being power-hungry.
In the latest racist attack on Harris, Charles Gasparino, a journalist, claimed that Kamala Harris may become the country’s “first DEI president.” Among conservatives, “DEI,” which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion,” has become a not-so-subtle dog whistle used to ferment resistance to diverse candidates under the premise that a Black person couldn’t possibly be qualified. This language was first employed against the Baltimore Mayor, Brandon Scott, after the Francis Key Scott Bridge collapsed in March. Of course, it’s absurd to accuse a Black person dutifully elected to a position of being a DEI hire. However, it also exposes that many white people who resist these hierarchy-attenuating policies do not understand how they function. A company, for instance, that employs a DEI program would implement policies that foster diversity; they would not hire an unqualified individual to promote diversity, which is what their bad faith argument implies.
Resistance to Kamala Harris, the Black woman most likely to become this nation’s first Black woman president, persists across the political spectrum. While white liberals and progressives would not attack her nomination on the same basis, accusing her of not being a citizen or being a DEI candidate, they would quietly conspire to oust her under the guise that her candidacy wouldn’t be successful. After all, before Biden became the nominee, Kamala’s primary candidacy ended because she did not receive substantial support. Despite political pundits indicating that Kamala Harris would be the preferred replacement if Biden decided to leave the race, there is a subtle resistance disguised as reasonable apprehension on the left. In Time magazine, Sonnenfeld and Henriques recently wrote that “if Biden steps aside, Harris should be included, not anointed,” suggesting that Democrats should consider her but not pre-emptively commit to supporting her as the nominee.
While President Biden attempted to quell concerns about his nomination through interviews and publishing a letter calling for the chaos in the party to end following a less-than-stellar debate performance, the discussions about alternative leadership should Biden leave the race have continued. If Biden, for any reason, left the ticket, Democrats would need to coalesce around a candidate who inspired sufficient momentum to win not just the Oval Office but help down-ballot candidates make it across the finish line. They would need to reignite the Obama coalition, a multiracial coalition of voters. And yet, resistance to Kamala Harris, the one legally next in line to become President should an emergency occur, exposes a frayed opposition to Trump’s re-emergence. To oppose Harris is to doubt the integrity of the Biden-Harris ticket. Yet, white liberals continue to toy with this idea of passing up Harris in favor of a white candidate to appeal to “blue-collar workers,” a term often used to refer to white voters, despite many Black people holding these positions. This decision, snubbing Harris, would betray the Black voters who secured Biden’s presidency and split support in a way that could ultimately throw the election to Republicans, in this case, under the leadership of Donald Trump.
While some white liberals oppose a Kamala Harris nomination for different reasons than their conservative counterparts, the result of taking their guidance is the same—depriving a qualified Black woman of an opportunity to become President. South Carolina Republican Governor Nikki Haley warned against her nomination, saying, “The thought of Kamala Harris being president should send a chill up every American spine.” On the other end of the spectrum, reporting by John Dorman suggested Kamala Harris’ camp felt initially slighted, “mad that Newsom and Whitmer,” two White Democrats, were “floated as Biden replacements over the VP.” This indicates that even among liberals, there is some resistance to placing a Black woman at the top of the ticket.
The Democratic party, since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has never won the majority of white voters in this country. And yet, there’s a movement within the party that has tried to regain their support at the cost of Black, Latino, and other racially marginalized voters. Those suggesting that if Biden steps down, Kamala should move out the way and make room for a white nominee may hold different political ideologies from conservatives, but their misogynoir would deprive her of the opportunity all the same. Racism and sexism, in this case, are like the cold, hardening the molasses and preventing racial progress from flowing.
In two-hundred and forty-eight years, America has never elected a Black woman as President. This is because many Americans harbor racist, sexist attitudes and doubt that, if given the opportunity, they could effectively wield power. American political parties rarely invest in Black leadership; thus, their campaigns often face an uphill battle with constituents. Others fear black power because of the way white power has been abused in this country. They think that a Black woman cannot be a leader that considers everyone’s interests because that’s how White men in leadership positions typically operate—self-serving and rarely supporting policies and practices that mitigate race, gender, and class hierarchies. However, it is the position of Black women in this hierarchy, the bottom, that makes them poised to become the best leaders—they know what it’s like to be overlooked and, consequently, will foster a society that doesn’t make those same mistakes of marginalizing groups, locking some out of opportunities. Racial progress is moving slowly as molasses in January because of the chilling impact of discrimination in our political discourse. It impedes a logical discussion about how Black women have been deprived of leadership positions.
Despite resistance, a Black woman will one day become President of the United States. It’s unclear whether that person will be Kamala Harris. Nevertheless, it’s essential that Americans consider the nature of their resistance thus far and how those throughout the political spectrum contribute to the deadening status quo, where Black women are opposed rather than supported as leaders.
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of Allison Gaines' work on Medium.
Comments
Leave a comment