If elected in November, Vice President Kamala Harris would make history in several ways as the 47th President of the United States — most notably as the first woman president, and a woman of color at that. So far in her campaign, however, that doesn’t seem like something she wants to talk about.
At the Democratic National Convention, her closing speech didn’t mention making history at all. Rather, she spoke about how much all Americans have in common.
In her Sept. 10 debate with former President Donald Trump, she was put on the spot about her mixed-race identity. True to the rest of her campaign, Harris shut down the conversation, instead focusing on unity.
“All I can say is, I read where she was not Black, that she put out,” Trump said in the debate. “And, I’ll say that. And then I read that she was Black. And that’s okay. Either one was okay with me. That’s up to her.”
In response, Harris said, “I think it’s a tragedy that we have someone who wants to be president who has consistently over the course of his career attempted to use race to divide the American people. You know, I do believe that the vast majority of us know that we have so much more in common than what separates us.”
Identity politics, which can be broadly defined as politics specifically pertaining to the identities of a specific group, such as race, gender or sexual orientation, is something Harris has effectively avoided in her campaign.
Not only is Harris’ candidacy unprecedented, but so is this campaign strategy. In 2016, Hillary Clinton made history as the first woman presidential nominee for a major U.S. political party, and her campaign capitalized on that. One of Clinton’s campaign slogans was “I’m with her.”
Dr. Wendy K. Z. Anderson, a communications lecturer and identity politics researcher at the University of Minnesota, said Harris’ strategy is reflective of her desire to be identified by her positions instead.
“I think what is fascinating that we see that is different about identity politics with Kamala Harris is there is this recognition of not wanting to be defined by an identifier,” Anderson said. “Harris is making a move to be defined as a presidential candidate. If she’s defined as a presidential candidate, then we’re going to take different criteria to evaluate her.”
Harris does not want to be seen as a woman or person of color first. She wants to be seen as a president.
“She’s really trying to make this become about being a presidential candidate and what that embodies, rather than what that looks like,” Anderson said. “To me, that’s the difference. Whenever I see what she’s doing, it’s always calling attention to actions instead.”
Anderson said focusing on specific identities as a candidate can be counterproductive in winning over voters.
“Splicing up of identities brings us to problematic generalizations where we’re voting because of that,” Anderson said. “I think she is a pioneer in that sense, as we try to get away from these demographics and reductive stereotypes.”
Sarah Beck, a political science doctoral student at the University, said that although identities are paramount to modern voter behavior, Harris is leaping to embrace more nuance as well.
“In recent years, partisanship has become a social identity of sorts,” Beck said. “With Kamala Harris, something that I think is interesting and different from, say, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is that she is embracing more nuance in terms of identity, class, geographic location and occupation.”
Identities are important, but almost every American possesses multiple. Campaigning on the back of just one can be divisive.
Although Harris’ campaign differs from Clinton’s in this way, Beck said that it can be likened to other female political candidacies. Beck cited Rep. Angie Craig, a Democratic congresswoman representing Minnesota’s 2nd District, as an example.
Craig first ran for Congress in 2016 after the Republican incumbent John Kline retired. She lost to Republican Jason Lewis by a narrow margin of 6,665 votes. She then ran again in 2018 against Lewis, and with her win became the first openly gay person elected to Congress from Minnesota.
“Rather than downplaying certain aspects of her identity, she really plays up her identity as a mother or Minnesota resident,” Beck said. “She is one of the few openly LGBTQ+ members of Congress, and so she can highlight that in certain spaces that are maybe more liberal. But also, when she is running in her district, which is super competitive, she can focus on issues that are broadly relatable and accessible to a lot of constituents, rather than what can be perceived as narrower identity tools.”
Beck said Harris’ campaign tactics give agency and discernment back to the voters.
“Kamala Harris herself has not necessarily engaged a lot in combating those identity critiques,” Beck said. “I think it’s really interesting that she’s letting it speak for herself. She knows that her constituents understand identity too.”
Another important strategic decision in Harris’ campaign was the selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. Anderson spoke about how this was also a choice related to identity.
“Walz has all these things that remind us that identities are not narrow when it comes to politics,” Anderson said. “Just because somebody is liberal doesn’t mean that they don’t own guns. He embodies an identity that doesn’t allow the reduction of the liberal to someone that can’t appeal across party lines.”
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz want to be seen as leaders for everybody. Not any singular group.
Many voters don’t see Harris’ multiple diverse identities as important. So rather than emphasizing those, she is letting the history she is making speak for itself. In doing this, she is making another statement.
Harris is showing us that American politics has moved past the point of having to defend our boxed-in identities. Perhaps we have moved past the point of having to box ourselves in at all.