By Farida Jalalzai
Kamala Harris was a candidate of many firsts, including the first Black and South Asian woman to run for president as the Democratic nominee.
Her resounding, swift loss in the presidential race to Republican Donald Trump on Nov. 5, 2024, means many things to different people, including the fact that American voters are unable to break the glass ceiling and elect a woman as president.
Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Farida Jalalzai, a scholar of women political leaders and gender in politics, to better understand the significance of Harris’ defeat – and how the U.S. stands apart from other countries that have had female leaders.
How important was Kamala Harris’ gender in her loss?
I can’t say it was a main reason she lost. But what I can say is it was a factor that contributed to her lack of support, especially when you compare her performance with Joe Biden’s in the same places and with almost all of the same voting groups he won in 2020. Gender was part of the campaign landscape in many different ways this election. Trump and his supporters used insulting tropes about what a woman leader would look like on the world stage. He used a lot of misogynistic and racist appeals in his campaign and tried to mobilize voters in ways that aimed to reinforce patriarchy.
What does Harris’ loss say about where gender equality stands in the country?
I am not surprised that the glass ceiling for women in politics is still super durable in the U.S. This is an example of the country’s limits of making true progress on women’s empowerment and equality. Of course, the fact that Harris was a woman of color vying to be the first woman president of the U.S. is pertinent.
Trump asserted that the country needs a strong man to lead. He portrayed Harris as a liberal extremist and generally got the message through that a woman would not be up to the job of president.
When Geraldine Ferraro ran as the first female vice presidential candidate nominated by a major party in 1984, there were a lot of questions about whether she would be tough enough on the world stage. Now, there are still questions about whether a woman would be tough enough to lead.
How does this election compare with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign against Trump?
In 2016, Hillary Clinton highlighted the historic nature of a woman running for president of the U.S. – and, of course, she received nearly 3 million votes more than he did, though she still lost the election. Harris was reluctant to mention the historic nature of her candidacy. She did not mention this when she gave her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2024. She recently explained this by saying, “Well, I’m clearly a woman. The point that most people really care about is can you do the job and do you have a plan to actually focus on them.”
Another important factor is Trump’s political trajectory. In 2016, Trump was still seen as an outlier and an extremist. Many political scientists – including myself – did not think he would receive the nomination, let alone win the general election that year. We see now that Trump is the new normal of the Republican Party. More moderate Republicans, such as Liz Cheney, are also not in power anymore. The party has become more extreme.
Is the country moving backward on gender equality, or is it stuck in neutral?
A few months ago, I would have said that the country is moving forward, but I feel like it’s moving backward now. That Trump’s sexist and racist messages resonated with a substantial number of people – or at least did not bother some enough – is a concern. Trump also said extreme things about women in 2016, including calling Hillary Clinton “a nasty woman.” This time around, these attacks seemed more normalized, saying that Harris was in a powerful political position only because she traded sexual favors, for example.
Women have led other countries. What makes the U.S. different?
The U.S. is a nuclear power and a major military and economic force. These realms are typically stereotyped by some as masculine. The president stands atop the U.S. political system and is directly elected. Women leaders often ascend through appointment as prime ministers in parliamentary systems. One of the vulnerabilities of prime ministers is that their terms in office are less secure. The traits deemed fitting for these roles – seeking compromise, for example – may prove less of a challenge to women than they would if they were seeking to be president of a powerful country like the U.S. on the world stage.
Only two women presidents in power in presidential systems were directly elected, and they are in Honduras and Mexico. The former is a former first lady, and the latter has strong ties to her predecessor. While women have been presidents of countries, several, such as the current presidents of Ethiopia, India and Greece, are essentially symbolic. Those positions are very different from the U.S. presidency, which has a more dominant role.
It is also pretty uncommon for a woman to be elected president in a presidential system without being a member of a powerful political family or without being supported by a male predecessor. When you look at Laura Chinchilla, the former president of Costa Rica, or former president of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, what connected a lot of these female politicians is that they were very much aided by male predecessors.
Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, the former president of Argentina, had a wealth of political experience before she came to office in 2007, but she served immediately after her husband, Néstor Kirchner, was president.
There is a complexity to these cases, and a lot of these women brought in their own political credentials and experience. But there is still a tendency to have the additional demand that women in politics have these connections.
Farida Jalalzai is Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Sinan Wiese says
I think gender equality took a turn for the worse. It started with JD Vance’s Cat Lady remarried got progressively worse from there. The Party’s Platform or should I say Trump’s wish list demeans women throughout. Project 2025 will even be worse. If this digression continues, I fear for my Granddaughter’s future.
JimboXYZ says
I was actually shocked that Harris didn’t stay true to “count every vote” like 2020. From the online vote counter, California never was indicated as anything more the 55% of the votes, Oregon & Washington +/- 75-80% precincts reported. OK, that doesn’t do anything much for EV differentials, but it sways the popular vote for appearances, whether she won, or in the case of under reporting to lose the popular vote. The battleground states, those were the 10’s & low 100’s of thousands of votes short in 2024, just like 2020 that was the driver behind the 4 day vote counting post-Tuesday. I was expecting to hear results for the election on Saturday, not the concession speech of Wednesday. And with 80+ days before anything has to be done for J20ish inauguration, fewer days for a J6ish deadline to certify results, I have the time, you have the time, we all have the time to “count every vote”. That was the premise that Biden-Harris was elected into power in 2020, California was reported at near complete vote reporting counts and the popular vote differential was CA & NY, lopsided 65/35 D:R vote ratios. No glass ceiling beyond elected or not for the win for POTUS ?
As we Thursday progressed. DOJ looks to end/close the lawfare vs Trump. All those untried cases disappear, to never be tried. And then there’s the backroom deal we are most likely more concerned with the Hunter Biden sentencing vs Trump Felony counts sentencing ? Pardon-fest ? Biden has 2 ways to pardon his son, Trump or Biden. The Harris loss eliminated Harris 3rd way to pardon Hunter Biden. The NY state case is going to be reversed one way or another for the lawfare it was. And what becomes of 2025-2028, DOJ investigations of Biden-Harris era ? They won’t be POTUS-VPOTUS by the end of the 3rd week of January 2025. As far as Biden trying to leverage a pardon for his son against Trump pardons isn’t that a application of how Hunter Biden served on the Burisma BOD when Biden was VPOTUS ? One of the very sources of offshore income & money laundering that created the IRS Tax Evasion case in the 1st place ? Categorize & file these as the glass ceilings & white privileges that the rest of us don’t get ? The nepotism & cronyism that have always existed.
YankeeExPat says
I an N.P.A. so excuse me if I am speaking
out of line, but the Dems needs to get some fresh thinking. By all means Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to retire from politics as she is out of touch with the constituency. She screwed Hillary Clinton with horrible advice, and now has done the same for Kamala Harris.ris.
BMW says
At some point competency has to be a factor. Meanwhile, we now have the first female Chief of Staff ever to rule the White House. You can label a male the most egregious of names, question their mental faculties, refer to their physique – but, a woman gets a pass because of her gender or racial makeup? This is the type of divisive commentary the American people just rejected in a major way. Keep peddling the bull because goodness knows there are no other note worthy items to share for the common good.