History Made, Progress Denied: What Kamala Harris’ Defeat Says About America’s Promise of Equality

The White House

Stuck in cycles of a broken system, women of colour face the harshest consequences on the very bottom of the social hierarchy, forced to deal with the roadblocks that their womanhood brings while simultaneously dealing with the obstacles they experience as a result of their race. In August 2024, Kamala Harris made history as the first Black, Asian-American woman to become the Democratic presidential candidate. Her campaign symbolized a critical moment in the struggle for representation, particularly for women of colour in U.S. politics.

Harris worked tirelessly to secure the votes of the American public through countless public appearances, speeches, debates, and rallies. Her qualifications were undeniable—having served as attorney general of California, a U.S. senator, and vice president. She outperformed Republican candidate Donald Trump, a convicted felon and former reality television personality, while gaining endorsements from former presidents and prominent public figures. On November 5th 2024, the fairytale came to a crashing halt when Donald Trump was re-elected to serve as the 47th President of the United States. 

So, why did Harris lose? Some argue it was a result of the general public’s disapproval of the incumbent Biden administration, or perhaps it was the short timeframe she had to campaign, but a persistent theme remains; her campaign faced relentless scrutiny rooted in biases against women of colour. These obstacles reflected a double bind: women in politics are often portrayed as either "too cold" or "too emotional," labels that undermine their credibility regardless of their leadership style.

Vice President Harris has to work twice as hard to gain the attention and accreditation from her peers, the same level of acclaim that comes naturally for men, even when they do less. Harris’s campaign demonstrated the struggle to strike a balance between asserting identity and avoiding the alienation of voters, a feeling hauntingly familiar from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She rarely emphasized the historic nature of her candidacy, a decision criticized by some as a failure to authentically advocate for marginalized communities. However, when she did discuss race and gender, she risked alienating conservative and moderate voters, illustrating the impossible tightrope women of colour must navigate in the public sphere.

This negativity is pushed by incel-like influencers, who veil their misogynistic beliefs and values as wanting to revive society’s ‘traditional’ values. With the prominence of these men rising, an increasing number of men are influenced by them, particularly young men who villainize women as the root of their problems. 

It has been eight years since Clinton ran for office, but the issues that impact women from succeeding persist. In the past three general elections, the only individual who succeeded in beating Trump was a white man. Evidently, white men are more palatable to the American public thanks to their positions perched on top of the social hierarchy. Harris’s intersectional identity made her less "relatable" to a majority-white, male-dominated voting base, who may have struggled to see their own experiences reflected in her story. This relatability gap, coupled with decades of discriminatory messaging, shaped public perceptions of her campaign.

 The uniquely intersecting barriers Harris faced can, in part, be explained by the racial biases she experienced during the campaign. Under the guise of promoting ‘traditional values’ and ‘protecting constitutional freedoms,’ the Republican party fosters a breeding ground for xenophobia and invites vessels for white supremacy groups. Republican strategies further amplified these biases. Through slogans like “Make America Great Again,” the GOP reinforced xenophobic and patriarchal ideals that resonated with a segment of the electorate resistant to social progress. Harris was subjected to attacks questioning her legitimacy as an American and her ability to lead—criticisms rooted in racist and sexist tropes rather than substantive policy debates. This outcome reflected a broader issue embedded in the fabric of American society: white male privilege often allows candidates like Trump to escape the scrutiny disproportionately applied to women and minorities.

America has failed in its attempt to promote equality, as it has currently reached a plateau in its protection and advocacy of marginalized groups as a result of outdated and prejudice based ideologies that has continued to divide the entire nation. This was not a Kamala Harris issue, rather this was an issue embedded into the DNA of America. The implications of her loss extend beyond her individual candidacy. Harris’s defeat signalled the limits of progress in American politics, where the promise of equality often collides with the realities of systemic discrimination. While her campaign broke barriers, it also revealed how far the U.S. has to go in dismantling the prejudices that undermine women and people of colour in leadership.

As Harris’ campaign ended and her concession speech came to a close, Beyoncé’s “Freedom” played for one last time. Hope remains, and hope will continue to prevail. Hope that one day, women of colour will do what shouldn’t be qualified as unthinkable, and become president of the United States; not because they’re women, but because they’re the best representative for the American public.

Jeeven (he/him) is a second-year Political Studies student and Editorial Board member at Political Digest.