Vice President Harris Blazes a New Trail for Women in the White House
Illustration by Hanna Barczyk
According to Wikipedia,
The Women's March was a worldwide protest on January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Tensions rose due to his statements, considered by many as anti-women or otherwise offensive. It was the largest single-day protest in U.S. history.
The Women’s March marked the most recent women’s movement seeking to gain parity and equality—but it was certainly not the first. The women who marched this year did so in the tradition of the suffragists of the early 20th century (Inez Milholland, Lucy Burns, Mary Church Terrell, Ida Wells, Susan B. Anthony and the like), who took to the streets of Washington D.C. in 1913 to voice their outrage over inequality and disparate treatment. Ironically, in no place is the disparate treatment of women more obvious than in Washington D.C. itself, and more specifically the White House, where in the past women held only the roles of First and Second Ladies. Now, for the first time in history, we have a woman Vice President-elect.
Two very visible examples of the continuing efforts to quiet women’s voices and devalue women’s accomplishments were revealed after the recent Presidential election: the treatment given to Dr. Jill Biden’s accomplishments and those of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. In the same way sports afford the unfortunate asterisk to diminish or distinguish an otherwise excellent accomplishment, a scramble to add the asterisk and undermine the credentials of both these women has begun. I’ll get to Dr. Jill Biden and Kamala Harris in a moment, but first let’s visit the treatment women have received over the years when they inhabited the West or the East Wing of the White House.
Successful, well-educated women have walked through the doors of the White House for decades, but they have often been met with distrust or even disdain if they became too vocal or expressed opinions beyond china and fashion. Just within the last 100 years or so, we see evidence that on the big stage in Washington, it is OK if “girls” are shiny, smart, and well-educated as long as they do not outshine the men in the room. In other words, as long as they stay in their lane and keep quiet.
Eleanor Roosevelt redefined the role of First Lady by being an active speaker for the administration—and she was criticized for it. After that, First Ladies have been subjected to criticism if they have been too involved or shown too much aptitude for politics and the use of the public platform to reach the world. While Eleanor Roosevelt, Bess Truman, and Lady Bird Johnson were all told to stay in their lane, Jacqueline Kennedy, Mamie Eisenhower, Lou Hoover, and Grace Coolidge were instead praised for their social grace.
The game changed significantly when Hillary Clinton became First Lady. She was the first First Lady to have a post graduate degree along with a successful law career. Her success and her ability garnered attention, but it also caused her to be a lightning rod for endless criticism. As First Lady, she was criticized for having offices in both the West and East Wing. She was criticized for voicing opinions about public policy, specifically health care reform. Hillary wasn’t the first one to push for policies that were important to her—a quick Google search of First Ladies over the years demonstrates that nearly all of them were strong, supportive, and pushed policies that were significant to them. What changed were the times and the manner in which they pursued those policy changes. The stronger and more accomplished the women in the White House became, the more they were perceived as threatening. Notwithstanding Hillary Clinton’s many accomplishments and posts (as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate)—the criticisms persist to this day. If you doubt anyone is still talking about that after all the other criticism, just peruse the recent articles about the comments made by Houston City Councilman Gregg Travis who suggested Hillary was not a qualified or classy First Lady because she stood by Bill Clinton “even though he raped 8 women.”
Michelle Obama was also never adequately recognized for her accomplishments. She graduated as Salutatorian of her high school senior class, graduated from Princeton cum laude, and attended Harvard Law School. Her credentials were largely neglected during her tenure as First Lady, but when she sought out projects, there was regularly backlash (like her proposal to switch vegetables for French fries in school lunches).
Criticism of Michelle Obama did not end with her tenure as First Lady and it continues today. Facebook and Twitter are replete with posts comparing pictures of Michelle Obama and Melania Trump. The sentiment is that Michelle was not “qualified” to be First Lady because she was not classy enough. And although Obama has an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a law degree from Harvard, critics are quick to suggest she didn’t earn either on merit but rather, because of Affirmative Action programs. Again, this is the cumbersome notion that women—and particularly women of color—are not entitled to the respect their accomplishments should earn them.
Fast forward to the events of the last two months as two women with estimable credentials receive the spotlight: Dr. Jill Biden and Kamala Harris. Dr. Biden is in the spotlight because she supports her spouse in his political career, and Harris because she is forging her own political career. Their personal journeys and successes have been different, but what is similar is the rancid tendency of others to attempt to devalue their efforts and accomplishments – to keep them quiet.
Dr. Biden has two Masters Degrees (one in Education and one in Arts) and a Ph.D. in Education, which she obtained at the age of 55, as a result of dogged determination. She did this while teaching disabled students, raising three children, and supporting her husband’s political career. In 2007 she completed her Ph.D., and one year later she became the Nation’s Second Lady when her husband was elected Vice President. For 8 years, political announcements referred to her as Dr. Jill Biden and no one said what Joseph Epstein said in his recent Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”): “Madame First Lady—Mrs. Biden—Jill—kiddo . . . drop the doc.” When confronted with backlash for the misogynistic tone of Epstein’s Op-Ed, the WSJ editorial page editor Paul Gigot defended Epstein’s position saying that the piece applied to men as well as women and that criticism of Epstein’s piece was just furthering a “sexism theme” against the media. If by that he means a call-out on sexism, then yes let us call that baby ugly: The Op-Ed was sexist and misogynistic. And when has a man been subjected to such a public decry of his credentials? Not to mention the absurd timing of such commentary after Dr. Biden has publicly and openly used the title for over 13 years. Now it seems important to opine that she’s “not really a doctor”? To respond to Paul Gigot: The “sexism theme” is alive and well because sexism and misogynism is alive and well. Clearly, there are those who prefer to see women portrayed in silky outfits, sitting demurely, and keeping their thoughts to themselves—unless they are promoting a man’s agenda.
Next month, for the first time in the history of this country, a woman will be sworn-in as Vice President of the United States. Also a first for a U.S. Vice President, Harris is Black and South Asian American, a woman of color. This is a woman whose accomplishments are many: excellence in education; excellence as a prosecutor; she was the first woman and first African American elected District Attorney in San Francisco; the first woman, first African American, and first South Asian American to hold the office of Attorney General in California’s history; the first South Asian American U.S. Senator; and now, the first woman to be elected Vice President of the United States and first African American and South Asian American Vice President of the United States. So of course, those credentials are not enough—despite there being nothing legitimate to criticize—and there is a “Yeah but” asterisk: *“Yeah but she slept her way to the top, she didn’t really earn it.” The default is to smear women’s character and that is what is being attempted with the Vice President-elect. Not only is that comment untrue, but it is also unfair, and it is a vile example of the kind of treatment reserved only for women and their accomplishments.
The criticism comes from the conclusion some have reached that she would not be where she is but for her romantic relationship with the then Mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown. Willie Brown was separated from his wife when he and Kamala Harris became romantically involved. They dated for about a year and half during which time, he was her mentor. They terminated their romantic relationship, but he remained her mentor. He was at the time also the mentor to another aspiring politician: Gavin Newsom. Both Harris and Newsom were appointed to State Commission positions in California by Willie Brown. Both Harris and Newsom benefited from their mentor’s advice and counsel. Both rose within the ranks: Harris was elected District Attorney of San Francisco and Newsom was elected Mayor of San Francisco. Harris was then elected Attorney General of California and Newsom was elected Governor of California. No one advances in politics without a political godfather or godmother who paves the way, makes the introductions, and gets appointments on important committees. Both Harris and Newsom found that support in Willie Brown. Both were elected to their positions, but only Harris’ accomplishments are called into question, whereas Newsom enjoys his success without the fray of that kind of criticism.
While Vice President-elect Kamala Harris’ election is breaking norms and records, she is subjected to smear tactics that attempt to undermine her accomplishments and character. Despite the fact that she is all of those things, she has risen while under the microscope of scrutiny that is reserved only for women, professional women, and professional women in politics. Furthermore, her accomplishments will only make it more difficult for her to gain credibility because they will be scrutinized and pulverized at every turn, thus potentially distracting from her message and her mission. This is not new, and it is getting old.
However, if what we saw her do during the Jeff Session hearings and during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings is an example of who she is and what she brings to the table, there are going to be some very unhappy people in Washington D.C. wondering who let this woman through the doors and why she won’t quiet down and then, maybe then we can all ask: Can you hear us now?