Clinton’s failure in 2016 had nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a symbol of Washington elitism, while Harris taps into the same populist energy that Clinton never could.
Hillary
Clinton may have shattered the glass ceiling, but it seems Kamala Harris is
dancing on the shards. The 2016 presidential election was supposed to be a
historic moment for women in America, with Hillary Clinton standing as the
first major female candidate for president. However, Clinton's campaign faced
challenges, and she ultimately lost to Donald Trump, sparking a debate about
whether America was ready for a female president. Some analysts argued that
sexism played a role in her loss, while others pointed to Clinton’s personality
and history. Fast forward to today, and Kamala Harris, a woman of color and the
first female vice president, seems to enjoy a level of popularity and political
influence that Clinton struggled to attain. The question is: what changed? Why
is Kamala Harris enjoying more widespread appeal, and is America now truly
ready for a female president?
Looking
back at Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, it is clear that her candidacy was
viewed through a much different lens than that of Kamala Harris today. Clinton
was often described as unlikable, cold, or distant. Even many women didn’t
rally behind her as the expected feminist candidate. In fact, a Gallup poll
during the campaign showed that Clinton’s unfavorable rating was 55%, higher
than that of any previous Democratic presidential candidate. Clinton's long
political history, which included controversies such as the Benghazi attack and
her private email server, cast a shadow over her candidacy. Her close ties to
the political establishment didn’t help either. For many voters, she
represented more of the same in a time when the country was crying out for
change.
In
contrast, Kamala Harris’s rise to prominence has been swift. Just a few months
ago, she was perceived by some as a "giggling" political nobody,
largely unknown on the national stage outside of California. But today, as vice
president, she is regarded as a highly popular figure, especially among women.
This change seems to have happened almost overnight. Her identity as a woman of
color, her relatively short national political career, and her charismatic
public persona seem to have struck a chord with voters. In particular, her
background as a child of immigrants and her work as a prosecutor resonates with
a broad base of supporters. A Reuters poll conducted in 2023 showed Harris with
a 53% approval rating among women, significantly higher than Clinton’s during
her campaign. But why the difference? What’s changed in the political
landscape?
It’s
tempting to say that America has evolved since 2016, but the truth is likely
more complicated. The idea that America wasn’t ready for a female president in
2016 doesn't hold much weight when examined closely. After all, if a woman
could be the most powerful candidate in the race at the time, how could it be
argued that Americans weren’t prepared for a woman in the White House? In fact,
the very notion seems to be a convenient excuse for a range of other factors
that contributed to Clinton’s loss. Her policy positions, her political
baggage, and her inability to connect with key voting blocs may have been more
decisive than any supposed gender bias. To argue otherwise is to overlook the
role of personal choice in voting decisions, reducing it to an issue of gender
alone.
Harris,
on the other hand, has managed to navigate these political waters with a
different approach. She presents herself as a candidate of the future—young,
diverse, and energetic. But it’s not just that she’s a woman of color; it’s
that she’s a woman who speaks to a different demographic. While Clinton
appealed more to older, white voters, Harris has been embraced by younger
voters and people of color. Her background as a former prosecutor, rather than
being a liability as some feared, has allowed her to present herself as a
tough-on-crime politician, while also advocating for criminal justice reform.
In a country where racial inequality has become a central political issue,
Harris’s identity and record are seen as assets.
Moreover,
Harris’s rise can also be attributed to the change in political dynamics. In
2016, Donald Trump’s outsider status, brash personality, and promise to shake
up the political system overshadowed Clinton’s experience. Trump’s victory was
a rejection of the political elite, and Clinton, as a long-time figure in that
world, became a symbol of the status quo. Harris, however, benefits from the
current political climate. After four years of Trump’s presidency, voters were
eager for a return to normalcy. Harris, alongside Joe Biden, represents
stability and professionalism. Unlike Clinton, she is not burdened by years of
political baggage. Her relative newness to the national stage works in her
favor.
But
let’s not forget the changing role of gender in politics. Women are now more
active and visible in American politics than ever before. In 2021, a record
number of women were sworn into Congress. Figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Stacey Abrams have become political powerhouses. In this context, Harris’s
gender is no longer a novelty. If anything, it’s an advantage. Women voters, in
particular, are more likely to rally behind a candidate who they believe
represents them. The #MeToo movement has also shifted perceptions, with women
demanding more representation and power in political spaces.
Yet,
despite this, the question remains: is America ready for a female president?
Some would argue that Harris’s rise to vice president suggests that the country
is finally prepared to break that final barrier. However, others may point out
that Harris’s popularity may not be as broad as it seems. She has faced
criticism from conservatives, and some moderates question her progressive
positions on issues like immigration and healthcare. Just because Harris is
popular today doesn’t guarantee that the American public is ready to elect
her—or any woman—as president.
In
plain terms, it may be that Clinton’s loss in 2016 wasn’t about gender at all.
Perhaps it was more about the candidate herself. Clinton’s decades in politics
made her a polarizing figure, while Harris, with her fresh face and dynamic
background, offers voters something new. But whether Harris’s popularity will
last or whether America will truly elect a female president remains to be seen.
As the saying goes, “Only time will tell.”
For
now, Harris is enjoying her moment in the sun, and perhaps she’s figured out
something that Clinton never did. But one thing’s for sure: if Clinton cracked
the glass ceiling, Harris may be poised to shatter it completely—unless, of
course, America decides it prefers the view from below.
No comments:
Post a Comment