Kamala Harris and the Curse of Female Perfectionism
Her interview with CNN's Dana Bash was fine. Adequate. But wasn't the mandate for her to knock it out of the park?
SHE WAS OK. Nothing more. Nothing less.
In her much-anticipated interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Kamala Harris fielded the expected questions about immigration, Bidenomics, fracking, and other hot button issues. And she answered them more or less like a seasoned politician—refashioning past statements to fit the moment and dodging specifics. Overall, she came across as pleasant and competent, though at times tentative. In other words, her performance was fine. Good enough.
For most politicians, surviving the minefield of a nationally televised interview without a major blunder would be cause for celebration. But does this standard apply to Harris?
I’m not so sure. Fair or not, women gunning for the top are expected to knock it out of the park. Everytime. It’s as though we’ve collectively decided that the only way a woman can be trusted with power is if she’s Superwoman—in a word, perfect.
Part of the problem for Harris is that she had been performing so spectacularly since the day Joe Biden dropped out of the race. Until that CNN interview, Harris had been an absolute thrill to watch. Not only has she brought J-O-Y to the presidential race but F-U-N. I mean, who would have dreamed that it’d be this woman of Jamaican and Indian descent who’d get Donald Trump’s boxers all in a bunch?
But we also know she has to perform an impossible dance—be strong yet compassionate, smart yet nonthreatening, confident yet humble–in other words, be one tough broad with the touch of Madonna (not the rock star). And because Harris is a woman of color, she must also show just enough pride in her heritage without falling into the trap of identity politics.
It’s a ridiculously tall order, yet Harris has largely fulfilled that mandate. What’s more, she made it look easy and breezy, like a frictionless ride.
Is she really “brat”?
Except we know it’s not. As much as we’d like to believe that Harris represents a new era for female politicians in which authenticity is embraced, we know that’s not true. And though pop star Charli XCX deemed Harris “brat,” can she really let loose? (“Brat,” according to Charli, is “that girl who is a little messy and likes to party and maybe says some dumb things”—e.g., someone with a devil-may-care attitude.) If Harris is “brat,” it’s a curated version.
If anything, Harris’s immensely successful campaign thus far is a testament to her discipline. The orchestration has been brilliant: she leaned into her mocked laughter, turned her wacky coconut tree comment into an endearing meme, and delivered a dazzling acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. She’s running a tight operation where order rules the day; literally, she never seems to have a hair out of place.
And speaking of looking good (isn’t that always mandatory for a female candidate?) Harris’s understated—almost nondescript–attire is part of that messaging. For her pivotal speech at the DNC, she donned an outfit that conveyed masculine strength (her navy Chole suit sported substantial shoulder pads) while asserting femininity (note the pussy-bow blouse, the high heels, and that lustrous Breck Girl hair).
Perfectionism is not sustainable
I bring all this up to underscore how a woman competing for the top job is judged. It’s never enough to have the chops; she must also strike the right tone and style—be the total package. It’s an implicit expectation of perfectionism that’s crippling and inevitably unsustainable.
The obvious irony, of course, is that “perfectionism” would never be spoken in the same breath about her rival. Yet Trump has managed to ascend to the highest office in the land despite (or perhaps because of) his glaring imperfections—and may do so again. Whereas Harris must prove her competency at every turn and show grace under pressure, Trump is free to be erratic, vulgar, and profoundly ignorant. His flaws are somehow testaments to his authenticity and boldness, while Harris’s imperfections stand as disqualifiers.
So what is the likely impact of that less-than-scintillating CNN interview on the race for the presidency? It was probably a wash: Harris’s fans will swoon, and her haters will hate. But in a tight race, that flat performance could mean a lost opportunity to convince critical undecided voters. (Another missed opportunity to score political points was Harris’s failure to bring up her support for abortion rights.)
You might think I’m too harsh on Harris so let me leave you with another thought: If Trump had given a similar interview in which he offered rational if vague responses, is there any doubt he’d be praised for his thoughtfulness and presidential timber? In a world where women are expected to be perfect, it is the deeply flawed men who often take the prize.
Contact: chen.vivia@gmail.com
Twitter (X): ViviaChen