Kamala Harris and the plight of the “unlikable” female politician

On Sunday, July 21, millions of Democrats let out a sigh of relief as President Joe Biden announced he would be dropping out of the race for president. Still, an undeniable sense of tension and uncertainty lingered. Now, with Vice President Kamala Harris set to lead the Democratic Party, the question of whether she can defeat Donald Trump still remains. It is possible, but she will face several unique obstacles in her path to victory.

Her biggest roadblock is the issue of popularity. The truth is, she’s never been particularly popular — with consistently negative approval ratings for the last couple of years and nearly 50% disapproval in more recent polls.

Harris has her work cut out for her. In the limited time before the November election, she has to prove herself as not only a strong  presidential candidate but also as a likable one. Research shows that voters will support a male candidate they do not like if they believe he is qualified. The same is not true for female candidates. Maintaining popularity is absolutely crucial to keeping Harris’ campaign afloat and also much more difficult because of her gender. 

Gender and likability affected the outcome of the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton was often deemed unlikable, and she was routinely the target of gendered insults, such as being compared to a “nagging wife,” facing criticism for her volume and tone, or simply being labeled a “bitch.” CNN exit polls found that those who had an unfavorable opinion of both candidates overwhelmingly chose Trump, which may be a testament to just how deeply influential these gendered biases are.

It is particularly difficult for female politicians to come off as likable and authentic because of a phenomenon researchers have termed “the double bind.” The double bind is an impossible set of expectations, both about leadership and gender, that women have been trying to hack, to no avail, for years. 

The double bind describes this impossible task at hand that Harris must grapple with. Women are expected to behave in a way that demonstrates they are nurturing, empathetic and communicative. In contrast, leaders are usually expected to behave in a way that demonstrates that they are strong, assertive and decisive. With this dichotomy in mind, it is nearly impossible for a female candidate to fit both the mold of the ideal woman and the ideal leader, as  these traits often conflict with one another. 

Women who seek leadership roles, particularly in politics, are put in a no-win situation, where they must try to strike the perfect balance of being perceived as both likable and competent. It seems that despite her best efforts, Harris can’t hack this impossible challenge. For one, she has been chastised repeatedly by right-wing media for her laugh in an effort to call her sensibility into question. 

During a campaign stop earlier in the summer, former President Donald Trump referred to her as “laughing Kamala.”  

“You can tell a lot by a laugh,” Trump said, “She’s crazy, she’s nuts.”   

These comments illustrate the frustrating issue of the double bind. If Harris were to act entirely serious at all times, she would likely still face criticism, possibly even to a greater extent. Clinton, for instance, was criticized for her stoicism, with male commentators instructing her to smile. Not to mention that Harris’ race makes her more susceptible to unfair stereotypes; for example, the “angry Black woman” stereotype has been used for years as a demeaning label for other prominent public figures, such as Michelle Obama. For all we know, Harris’ humorous comments or giggles during otherwise tense moments may be part of an intentional effort to evade this characterization. Unfortunately, though, her demeanor has resulted in criticism, mockery or, as many voters perceive, an air of inauthenticity.

When trying to pinpoint the reason behind this inability to connect with voters, some point to her consistent trouble with messaging. She has acknowledged this weakness, contrasting her background as a prosecutor to the skill set required in politics. Her career has not been measured by “giving lovely speeches,” she said in a New York Times interview. 

There’s also an issue for voters to overcome. It is easy to make quick judgements about Harris without making an effort to understand how her background as a woman of Color may shape her behavior and decisions. This is something that Harris cannot control but will have to simply fight hard against to overcome.

This is just the beginning of Harris’ journey; a lot can happen between now and November. If she can present strong messaging that resonates with voters, she may be able to completely change the narrative currently surrounding her, her messaging and her politics. How the remaining race for president will unfold is uncertain. One thing is for sure: Just by making the attempt, Harris is breaking down barriers for future generations of female leaders. I hope that she will overcome the obstacles on her way toward shattering the glass ceiling.