Vice President Kamala Harris recently addressed her choice not to select Pete Buttigieg as her running mate during the 2020 election in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Harris described her decision as a “risk,” acknowledging that she initially viewed Buttigieg as her “first choice” but ultimately backed away due to his sexuality. This admission, published in her memoir, “107 Days,” has attracted scrutiny and criticism.
In her memoir, Harris candidly reflected on the dynamics of the election, stating that Buttigieg “would have been an ideal partner—if I were a straight white man.” She indicated that the intersection of identities—being a Black woman running for national office while considering a gay man as her running mate—was a significant factor in her decision-making process. “We were already asking a lot of America,” she explained. “Part of me wanted to say, ‘Screw it, let’s just do it.’ But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk.”
Harris’ remarks bring to light an uncomfortable truth within the Democratic Party’s narrative of inclusion. Critics argue that behind the facade of progressive values, there lies a deeper distrust of the electorate. Harris’s confession implies that even she did not fully believe that America was ready to embrace such a diverse ticket. This raises questions about the sincerity of the party’s push for diversity and representation.
Buttigieg responded to Harris’ claims in a Politico interview, expressing surprise at her comments. He affirmed that Americans deserve “more credit” than to assume they would reject the idea of a gay vice president. His response suggests a belief in the electorate’s ability to look beyond identity politics, emphasizing that “politics is about the results we can get for people and not about these other things.” Such a viewpoint challenges the current approach to identity in politics, advocating instead for a focus on tangible issues and results for the electorate.
During the interview with Maddow, Harris attempted to clarify her earlier comments, stating, “It’s hard to hear.” Still, she struggled to distance herself from the implications of her decision. She insisted that her choice was not motivated by bias, but rather by the high stakes and limited time for decision-making during the election. “It made me very sad,” she remarked, reflecting on the difficult decision she faced.
This latest controversy speaks volumes about Harris’ leadership style and decision-making process. Despite promoting herself as a champion of progressive values, her admission that she viewed Buttigieg’s sexuality as a “real risk” undercuts her narrative. It reveals an inconsistency in her advocacy for inclusiveness, suggesting that political reality, rather than principle, often governs decisions in high-stakes elections.
Furthermore, Harris’s statements have prompted scrutiny of her own rise in politics. She ascended to the vice presidency after Joe Biden chose her, despite not having won any nationwide primary votes during her own presidential campaign. This sets up a stark contrast between her and Buttigieg, who has found favor among many party leaders and voters alike.
The intersection of identity politics and electoral strategy continues to be a contentious topic, especially within the Democratic Party. Harris’s failure to embrace a truly diverse ticket demonstrates the internal conflicts present in the party’s approach to representation. As the party grapples with its image and values, Buttigieg’s counter-narrative presents a compelling challenge to Harris’s perspective.
"*" indicates required fields
