The Oval Office could use a woman's touch, but not Kamala's
A woman capable of leading, governing, and empathizing. Not just ~vibing~
Women are highly effective leaders
Fresh out of undergrad, my first managing director was a well-respected—and somewhat feared—woman. It was a large firm, yet everyone either knew her or knew of her. She was intense when necessary, but kind and caring interpersonally—always pragmatic, even in chaos. Honest mistakes were fine by her; she never lambasted anyone for being human. All she asked was not to be surprised, and when she was, her displeasure was evident without a word. She loved dogs and showed a palpable sense of joy when I’d show her pictures of my puppy at the time.
Like many of my male colleagues, I thrived under her leadership. What made me feel especially at home was that her style mirrored what I knew from my own life: my family has always been a matriarchy, one that stretches back for generations. All the men before me, God love ’em, either died or were divorced. But they weren’t exactly the ones setting the tone or doing the lion’s share of parenting in the first place. Sure, they were revered mentors and decent humans, but following their lead would have you ending up in the troubled seas of booze (among other unfavorable destinations).
It’s the women—the mothers—who have always been the role models in my family. The spiritual leaders, even. I wouldn’t have it any other way, and I consider myself lucky to have been led by women in my family.
Raising me was a mighty task. Behaviorally, I was an anarchist; emotionally, I was erratic; motivationally, I was despondent at times. Absent sufficient leadership, I probably would’ve headed down one or more of several troubling paths.
But it’s not that the women in my family merely lead as the result of the men’s shortcomings; they lead because they’re tactful, empathetic, and assertive. And they’re resilient, compromising their values for no one or no thing.
Aside from my family, I owe every bit of my growing up to having been influenced and inspired by a dozen (or so) leaders—teachers, coaches, managers, etc.—every single one of whom (male or female) has raised children of their own. It’s no coincidence nor is it a novel concept. Great leaders become that way through servitude, and there’s no more profound form of servitude than stewarding a human life from infancy to adulthood.
All of this leads me to a conclusion: women are extraordinary leaders. I’ve seen it firsthand in the workplace and in my family. Furthermore, those who have raised children—whether men or women—are far better leaders than those who haven’t.
Raising a child is the ultimate form of leadership as it shapes a person’s capacity to inspire others into action. This is especially true when leading family-oriented people; leaders are trusted only to the extent that their interests and concerns align with those they are leading.
In a nation like America, where family values are foundational, it stands to reason that the most effective leaders—especially in the Oval Office—are those who’ve raised children. As in any organization, when low morale and division are rampant, leadership is the first place to effect change.
Kamala has shifty values and a history of failures
The Oval Office is dormant and it’s been dormant for years—come on, yes it has, and you know exactly what I mean. Even before Kamala Harris was, shall we say, not-so-formally “nominated” as the Democrats' presidential candidate in July, she failed to pick up Biden’s slack. I’d give her the benefit of the doubt if she’d demonstrated the ability to address key issues or bring people together. She simply hasn’t.
As for tackling key issues, Kamala has taken zero accountability for her failures. Take immigration. Harris was effectively made the point person on this issue, and illegal border crossings surged into a full-blown crisis under her leadership. Instead of accepting responsibility, she deflected blame, suggesting it wasn’t within her purview. It was.
On the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, she inflated her role beforehand, proudly stating that she was the last person in the room when Biden decided to proceed with the plan. But when the withdrawal went disastrously wrong, she distanced herself, emphasizing that the decision was entirely Biden’s:
“As I have said, President Biden made the courageous and right decision to end America’s longest war.”
Another big one is Harris’s position on issues related to fracking and energy production. In 2019 during her presidential campaign at a CNN climate town hall, Harris stated:
“There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.”
She reiterated this position on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.
Recall that when Kamala entered the White House as VP for Biden, the first 100 days of the administration was chock full of executive orders and actions1 that set in motion a tidal wave of higher gas prices and lost jobs (the big one being revoking the permit Keystone XL Pipeline).
Harris now firmly opposes a fracking ban, stating in a recent CNN interview:
"As president, I will not ban fracking"
Economically, yes, it’s a good thing that she’s no longer in favor of a fracking ban as it would decimate hundreds of thousands of jobs (no, I don’t hate the environment, but it’s the economy, stupid).
What bothers me is her willingness to say whatever her well-funded focus groups suggest in order to get elected. She shows little regard for what’s actually good for the country, and we’ve all suffered the consequences of rampant inflation from such ignorance—both hers and Biden’s.
Harris has flip-flopped her positions on energy, crime, foreign policy, and the list goes on. Her values simply shift depending on her audience and the interests she’s pursuing (such as an election). To her, the issues of the American people are merely a means to an end.
Another hallmark of her political career is to issue blame on her staff anytime something goes wrong. A 2021 CNN story summed up their interviews:
“They all tell roughly the same story: Harris’s staff has repeatedly failed her and left her exposed, and family members have often had an informal say within her office.”
Unsurprisingly, one report after another has indicated constant infighting among her ranks over the years. As Vice President, 92% of the staff hired after she took office in January 2021 have left. Only four of the original 47 hires remain employed without interruption, according to an analysis of records obtained by Open the Books. For someone with a relatively well-established political career, this discontinuity is troubling and suggests unresolved internal conflicts, poor communication, and a lack of empathy from leadership. It points to significant failures at the top.
Her public appearances—or lack thereof, before to last week’s "blitz"—have done little to inspire confidence or improve her favorability. In fact, before her late-July installment as the Democratic candidate, even left-leaning media outlets were offering neutral or negative coverage of her. Surely they would have been more charitable had she given them something, anything, to unequivocally frame positively. And unlike her predecessor, this isn’t due to an old sleepy brain. She’s a bad communicator, and when she can’t think on her feet, she starts talking in circles, making shit up to say.
Harris has been a surface-level communicator for as long as I’ve seen her. Try as I might (and I do try), I hear nothing of substance when she speaks. In response to even moderately challenging interview questions, she offers flimsy, roundabout answers cloaked in ambiguity—almost as if by design. After all, how can you disagree with someone if you don’t even know what they said?
Frankly, the way she speaks feels like an insult to the public’s intelligence. She carries this air of insincerity, often laughing in the absence of humor. And she clings to low-hanging-fruit messaging, like ‘making the wealthy pay their fair share,’ a talking point the Democrats have been regurgitating for decades—despite having had ample opportunity to act on it over the past four years (and done nothing). She even shifts her accent based on the ethnicity of her audience.
I suppose this is all to say that there is an absolute lack of novelty to Kamala Harris—politicians be politicking n shit. So while many of these criticisms could apply to any politician, it’s the combination of her hollow rhetoric and grandiose inauthenticity that makes her especially unappealing. I felt this way when Tulsi Gabbard eviscerated her on the primary debate stage in 2019.
And I feel even more strongly this way five years later.
Yet, she’s still more favorable than Trump
To the extent that her off-putting demeanor affects her favorability—and it stands to reason that it does—many have grown to share this sentiment since the Biden administration took office.
Indeed, Kamala’s favorability deficit has been historically bad when compared to her predecessors.
If Kamala’s long been unfavorable (even within the ranks of her own party), why would she be the replacement? Simple: she’s more lucid than Biden has been in years and was seen as a solution to ease voter concerns about Biden’s poopy brain. With Trump still viewed as a dire threat to democracy by many on the left (the ongoing Hitler comparisons are a bit much, no?), and Biden rapidly losing ground over the summer after securing the primary, Kamala was the viable answer (especially given the ability for her to run a campaign from the White House). And that answer seems to be working, with the tide now having turned considerably.
From a policy standpoint, nothing has changed since she was put atop the Democratic ticket. Kamala has had every chance since 2021 to implement the policies her campaign now touts as solutions to the very problems that have emerged under the current administration. So, what’s behind the sudden and dramatic reversal in favorability? It’s the vibes, stupid.
“Elections come down to vibes, and Kamala has got the vibes right now” - obviously a political expert: David Hogg
Well, young David, it’s also about the money. And Kamala gotta lotta dat. Since the campaign launch, they’ve seen an unprecedented $1 billion influx in donations in just three months.2 With such deep pockets, they’ve ridden the coattails of a fad-heavy, substance-light campaign.
They’re constantly active on X, slinging memes, and portraying Kamala as the multicultural, bubbly alternative to an old white rich man. For now, the strategy is working tremendously well, as nearly half of adults under 30 are using social media as their main source of political and election news.
Through widespread celebrity endorsements, trend-savvy social media stunts like "brat summer", and, of course, a concerted change of tone from the media, the Harris campaign has mastered the art of courting Gen Z voters—who vote emotionally rather than pragmatically. And yet, she’s neck-and-neck with perhaps the most hated presidential candidate in U.S. history.
Imagine how big a lead Kamala would have over Trump if she wasn’t so off-putting to the reason-based voter. Better yet, imagine how enormously fucked the Harris campaign would be if Republicans finally came around on abortion. Let’s just call it what it is: a race between two profoundly flawed candidates, both disliked by their own parties and the opposition.
The concerns around Kamala’s childlessness aren’t unfounded, just poorly framed
For context, the past 31 U.S. presidents each had children. The only childless U.S. president in history was James Buchanan, who served from 1857 to 1861. Do I believe that raising children should be a requirement for becoming president? Of course not. Kamala Harris’s lack of parenthood is irrelevant in itself. Plenty of childless adults possess the leadership traits often developed through parenthood.
But these are precisely the traits that Kamala Harris desperately lacks. What is relevant is that she’s a bad leader. Republicans, however, have botched their attempts to frame this issue to voters. Take, for example, the unhinged comments made by Trump’s VP candidate, J.D. Vance, back in July.
“We’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made … And so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too."
My mother is a cat lady, how dare he? Yes, he was being hyperbolic, but if his point was that our elected officials should have familial interests aligning with those of the electorate, well, there are as many better ways to articulate that as there are cat ladies in the world. A more recent take on the subject, from Sarah Huckabee Sanders in September, was no less preposterous.
In referencing a quote from her own daughter: “It’s okay Mommy, one day you can be pretty, too,” Sanders went on “My kids keep me humble. Unfortunately, Kamala Harris doesn’t have anything keeping her humble.”
Sure, humility is generally a fine characteristic to embody, but neither candidate is even slightly humble, nor would humility necessarily serve them well as president (Trump could use some, I’ll admit). Sanders’ anecdote was bizarre and the rationale for her position was weak.
Kamala took to the women’s sex talk (let’s call it ‘well-being’) podcast Call Her Daddy to respond to Sanders’ comment.
“There are a whole lotta women out here who: one, are not aspiring to be humble; two, a whole lotta women out here who have a lot of love in their life, family in their life, and children in their life. And, I think it’s really important for women to lift each other up.” - Kamala Harris, verbatim
~ awwww, such vibes <3
I mean I watched this whole episode and it felt like a goddamn couples therapy session with all the bullshit pity. Aside from the 10-minute segment on abortion (I get it), Alex and Kamala spent maybe three minutes discussing policy.3 The rest was touchy-feely and seemed performative.
At any rate, no one questions whether Kamala loves her two stepchildren, who were already in their late teens by the time she met them, and whose upbringings she had no part in. Kamala has every right to call herself a “mother of two children,” in referring to her husband’s adult offspring who were both born in the 1990s. (Just like she has every right to call herself the democratically nominated candidate!)
I’m being tounge-and-cheek, of course—but I will say, the argument that she must have biological children to lead effectively is both ignorant and entirely beside the point. We don’t know whether Kamala ever wanted or tried to have children, and it’s not for anyone to make assumptions.4
What concerns me is that she’s never raised a child—whether biological, adopted, stepchildren, nieces, nephews, or otherwise. And by “raising,” I specifically mean guiding and facilitating a child’s growth as a guardian and caretaker through their youth and adolescence. That’s a process that demands strong leadership and it demands bonding to your word.
Effective leaders find ways to relate to those they’re trying to lead. There’s a word for that—empathy. Every great leader I’ve known or observed has had a strong sense of it. When leaders encounter an issue, they seek to understand it; not just skim the surface and sprinkle in pity. Empathy is action-oriented, thrives on trust and loyalty, and needs to be built in the years leading up to a campaign—not on the one-yard line of an election race. Preordained, targeted words aimed at specific voter groups are not empathy.
Worse yet, in the Call Her Daddy episode, all I heard was sympathy—fake sympathy, at that—as Harris tried to claim she spent her time as a prosecutor “focused on protecting the most vulnerable.” Not true. It is well documented (by CBS, NYT, and others) that she unfairly targeted poorer communities and opposed criminal justice reforms.5
Exuding false sympathy is par for the course with Kamala, as is speaking in circles when she’s out of her depth (which isn’t infrequent), and as is lacking any form of empathy—genuine or fake.
This emptiness in her words might explain why the Harris campaign has been conspicuously light on public appearances, opting to avoid sit-down interviews. But with criticism mounting, her team launched a so-called “media blitz,” though it was more of a hug-fest. The tour included stops on:
Call Her Daddy (hug),
Howard Stern's radio show (hug),
The View (group hug),
60 Minutes (not quite a hug, but certainly not a blitz).6
Meanwhile, as she was busy on her tour, Obama stepped in to do her bidding with Black male voters, admonishing them for ‘putting women down’ if they don’t vote for Kamala. In other words: “Vote Democrat, you sexist pigs!”
As usual, none of these appearances contained much substance. A strong leader would address the issues voters care about most—like the economy, immigration, and foreign policy. Yet after four years in the White House, Kamala continues to avoid speaking on these crucial topics. Whether she’s unwilling or simply incapable is unclear—what we know is that she’s either a bad leader or she’s incompetent, and maybe both.
Am I saying she’s a bad person? Well, her ethics aren’t great. The daughter of an oncologist and a Stanford PhD economist, she was recently found (allegedly) to have plagiarized whole passages of her 2009 book, Tough on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.
Wikipedia?! No bueno…
She also strikes me as narcissist, given her lack of empathy—but then again, most politicians are at that level. And yet, it’s not her flawed character that makes her unfit for office. It’s not because she’s childless, and it certainly isn’t because she’s a woman. No, she’s unsuitable for the Oval Office because she lacks the skills necessary to lead and govern. Kamala’s ineptitude as a leader is the real issue.
The mothers, women, and leaders that I respect have ironclad values and a strong sense of identity. They are authentic; they’d never alter their dialect to match the demographics of an audience. They are genuine, leading through empathy as opposed to sympathy. Most importantly, they take responsibility—they don’t shift blame onto others before first looking inward.
Kamala Harris has a weak sense of identity, and embodies none of the admirable values possessed by the women I revere. David Hogg was right; she’s nothing more than a ~vibe~, shifting based on the room she’s in, the color of the people around her, and the fluid nature of her influence. A chameleon, politically and personally.
She also lacks the resilience of a strong leader; rather than overcoming obstacles while staying true to a set of values, she blames people and forms a new identity as needed. It would be hard to live this way if you were forced to raise a child. How could the child ever feel a sense of stability with a parent constantly shifting and lacking a true north?
Perhaps if she’d gone through the painstaking, day-in, day-out process of raising a child, she would be more fit to lead the country. After all, the job of a parent is to govern, teach, and inspire their children. She could have learned these skills by mentoring those under her tutelage and nurturing relationships. Instead, she levies blame and the people around her quit.
Kamala Harris never developed the skills of leadership, and it shows in her failures as a public servant to the American people. Maybe it’s a relief she never raised a child, as they would have suffered under her leadership just as the American people have.
Rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement: Executive order to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, signaling a renewed commitment to global climate efforts.
Keystone XL Pipeline: Revoked the permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline, effectively blocking the project's progress.
Federal Lands and Waters: The administration implemented a temporary moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters. This pause was set to continue until at least summer 2021 to allow for a review of the federal oil and gas program
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Froze all oil and gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and ordered a new analysis of potential environmental impacts.
Google being the biggest donor at $1.5 million, 11x the amount of Trump’s biggest donor, American Airlines.
I can’t help but think that her child tax credit idea is nothing but a campaign ploy to try and circumvent the unease voters have around her not having raised children. Again, she’s had ample time in the White House to try and pass these types of initiatives.
Fertility, among other things, is a considerable factor in this equation that complicates the ability of a woman to have a child.
Her “reentry initiative” that she touts from 20 years ago was a dud, but a small one. San Francisco’s jails actually grew during its run and the state prison population reached new heights the year after its implementation. She left no positive lasting effects on the poverty/crime situation in San Francisco, which has become a dumpster fire in Kamala’s wake.
Dang bro.
I will admit that as a Canadian I care very little about American politics. I read this only because I have respect for its author, but there are some interesting points here.
Despite being the left leaner in the American two party dictatorship, Kamala Harris actually reminds me of our Canadian right wing candidate Pierre Polivre, in that the leopard will constantly change their spots depending on the audience they're in front of, and appear to have no coherent plans to accomplish anything, instead campaigning by pointing out problems that exist, and not even good problems.
For instance, I'm a big climate change guy, so (if I were American) if a candidate were to announce a plan to cut back on domestic air travel harshly, in favour of a much improved AmTrak, that would almost singlehandedly win my vote, but nobody will announce that, because it requires some foresight and commitment. It doesn't seem like old Kamala is willing to commit to anything. At least Donald will make comedically impossible commitments (building a wall to keep Mexican crossers out. Good luck with that), but I'm not sure which I'd like better. Commitments I know are impossible, or no commitments at all?
On the other hand (aided because I am foreign, and don't have to feel the consequences), I sincerely hope a female can win such an important office, just to show North Americans that females can. This one victory could double the amount of feasible candidates in future elections, and even if Kamala sucks, not every North American female politician will. We all know that females have long been shut out of the highest offices (Canada has had one female PM, America has had zero), and this is harming us all, based on the very simple thought experiment of the best possible candidate being a female.
So on the whole, I have very little respect for, or faith in, Kamala Harris, but I'll be rooting her on from a foreign country anyway (and please make train travel less awful so we can stop warming the globe!).