Last week we witnessed the race for the election of the 46th President of the United States between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Ultimately, and despite what Trump and his supporters are still denying, Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris were announced the projected winners. For this blog post, I wanted to focus on Kamala Harris whose Vice Presidential win has been celebrated as a historic victory given she is the first woman, first Black person, first Asian person, and first Jamaican person to serve as the Vice President of the United States. She is also being celebrated as an HBCU grad, specifically from Howard University which is considered the mecca of higher education in the Black community. At the end of the race we also saw a historic moment in Georgia which flipped from red to blue as they began counting mail-in ballots. This flip has been accredited to the dedicated work of Stacey Abrams, a Black woman politician and voting rights activist in Georgia who helped over 800,000 Georgia residents register to vote in the last two years in preparation for this election.

At the beginning of Biden’s campaign, there were discussions about who he would pick as his VP, especially since he stated it would be a woman. The possibility of Stacey Abrams being selected was discussed, but as we saw, Joe Biden decided to go with Kamala Harris. What is interesting to me is the juxtaposition of Harris’ and Abrams’ bodies/appearance and how they may have impacted Biden’s choice to go with Harris. In a class where we talk about phenomenology and unruly bodies, we can’t ignore the ways in which Kamala Harris’ “look” contributed to her win as Vice President alongside Joe Biden, especially when compared to who I would consider a much more worthy running mate, Stacey Abrams. Kamala is mixed race, light skinned, and thin with straight hair and racially ambiguous facial features. Stacey Abrams is dark skinned and plus sized with short kinky hair and clearly Black facial features. What do these different body types communicate to Democratic voters? Kamala is the physical embodiment of what many white liberals and democrats perceive as racial progress in America. The racially ambiguous person is almost always cast as the diversity character in TV and film. They check the inclusivity box of non-white without making white viewers uncomfortable. Kamala Harris makes white people feel like they are progressive supporters of Black women, while also avoiding making them feel too uncomfortable about having a Black woman leading alongside the President of the United States. It was very interesting to see white liberals put #BlackLivesMatter and #ACAB in their social media bios and then turn around and post cute pictures and videos of Kamala Harris who has a long career of jailing poor Black and brown people. If Stacey Abrams had that record, would she have even been considered for VP at all? Kamala’s win and the reaction to her win makes me wonder how desirability functions in a way that makes democrats completely disregard her violent anti-Black past in favor of being able to say they helped put a very conventionally attractive, light skin, Jamaican/Asian woman in office. Stacey Abrams dedicated her career to grassroots organizing, fighting against voter suppression, and even running for governor of Georgia, yet she’s not good enough to be Vice President and Kamala, who supports giving more money to the police that antagonize Black and Brown communities, is? Is it Stacey’s skin color, body shape, hair type that make her unfit to be Vice President? Because it can’t possibly be a flaw in her politics or her commitment to serving marginalized communities? My mind immediately sets up the situation like an audition for the role of Vice President alongside Joe Biden in the movie that is the American presidential election. In the casting call, they state that they are looking for a woman of color democrat. After several auditions, Joe Biden and his team narrow it down to Stacey and Kamala. Stacey’s resume is great. She’s talented, maybe even over-qualified and would do amazing in the role, but they question whether their target audience (young progressives) would like her. Is she hip enough for the role? Can they market the gap in her teeth and her kinky fro in a way that will make her everyone’s favorite character? Maybe not. Then there’s Kamala who has the education and formal training, but not much relevant experience. But she’s cool. She has swag. She’s a nice mix of Black and Asian, but you can’t really tell by looking at her. She’s can rock a pants suit but also hops of the plane in her timbs because she’s hip and will look good standing next to Joe in his shades. Fans will love her. So they choose Kamala…

We clearly see over and over again in entertainment, in politics, in interpersonal interactions, etc. how aesthetic proximity to whiteness can give one access to the privilege of being mediocre at the expense of those who are far from the white standard’s lives. Not only is Kamala undeserving of her position in my opinion, along with Joe Biden, but her being there contributes to the continuation of anti-Black violence and oppression. But we’re supposed to celebrate because she’s the first woman of color who gets that power to do so. Another point I’ve seen discussed since Kamala’s win is the fact that she is not a descendent of people enslaved in North America. While her Jamaican ancestors may have likely been subject to colonialism and violent white supremacy, her history does not include the specific trauma of being an enslaved Black person in America. It’s interesting to consider that fact when she is being upheld as the symbol of Black American progress. To sum up, Kamala Harris is a perfect example of just how powerful colorism, fatphobia, featurism, and desirability are even in a decision to choose who is the best vice presidential candidate of the United States. Maybe we just can’t expect truly radical change to happen within the systems we are trying to eradicate.