Writes Lukong Stella Shulika (Institute of the Future of Knowledge, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa)

The 2024 presidential election was touted as a landmark moment for American democracy, promising to challenge both political ideologies and societal norms. Kamala Harris, with her clear, inclusive vision and unprecedented candidacy as the first woman of colour on a major party’s presidential ticket, stood at the forefront of this moment. Her campaign sought to transcend traditional political divides, appealing to voters from all political walks of life, yet despite these aspirations, her candidacy fell short of securing the presidency. The results of the 2024 election were not only a reflection of the electoral dynamics at play but also underscored a deeply entrenched societal resistance to female leadership, particularly leadership from women of colour.

Despite her qualifications, progressive policies, and bipartisan appeal, Kamala Harris’s loss in the 2024 race exposes the continuing relevance of patriarchal and racial biases in shaping the U.S. political landscape. In many ways, her experience mirrors that of Hillary Clinton in 2016, suggesting that American society is still far from ready to embrace women, especially women of colour, at the highest echelons of political power, regardless of their clear policy agendas or competence. Harris’s failure, like Clinton’s, points to a larger cultural reluctance to move beyond the traditional gendered and racialized norms of leadership that dominate American political culture.

The bipartisan coalition that fell short

From the outset, Harris’s campaign set itself apart from the usual partisan frameworks of U.S. presidential races. While she was running as a Democrat, her candidacy found appeal across party lines. Harris was able to attract moderate Republicans and independents who, weary of the divisive politics embodied by former President Donald Trump, were looking for a candidate who promised practical solutions and national stability. Her policies, centred on economic recovery, healthcare reform, and social justice, appealed to many who saw the urgency of progressive action but also wanted a leader who could unite a fractured electorate. Her calls for unity in the face of increasing political polarization resonated across the political spectrum, which positioned her as a candidate capable of transcending partisan divides.

However, this coalition, while vocal and initially hopeful, was not enough to push her over the threshold for victory. As evidenced by the election results, Harris’s appeal among moderate Republicans and independents was undercut by the social and cultural constraints of race and gender. Voters, particularly in key swing states, hesitated to vote for her, not because of her policies, but because of the discomfort they felt with her identity as a woman of colour. Her ability to unite across party lines was limited by an electorate that was, in many cases, unwilling to embrace a candidate who deviated from the long-standing archetype of presidential leadership, one that had historically been occupied by White men.

This trend of discomfort among swing-state voters draws parallels to the 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton, despite her political experience and broad policy appeal, faced significant barriers related to her gender. Like Clinton, Harris’s candidacy forced voters to confront an uncomfortable truth, the notion of a woman leading the nation was still foreign to many Americans. Even when voters expressed support for her platform, that support often fell apart when it came time to cast ballots. The hesitancy in embracing Harris, much like the hesitancy with Clinton, was not rooted in policy disagreements but in the profound, underlying biases that shape the American political psyche.

The paradigm of the ‘Acceptable Leader’

Harris’s loss in 2024 highlights the persistent cultural barriers women face in American politics, especially those who do not fit the traditional pattern of leadership. American politics has long been dominated by a racial and gendered paradigm in which power is associated with White, male figures. The societal expectations of leadership—resilience, toughness, and pragmatism—are still, in many Americans’ minds, qualities that are most associated with White men. This cultural expectation was not easily disrupted by a candidate like Harris, who, despite her impressive resume and policy clarity, did not fit into these well-established archetypes.

The racialized and gendered nature of leadership perceptions in the U.S. was evident in Harris’s campaign. While her platform, a commitment to economic recovery, healthcare reform, and social justice, addressed the nation’s most pressing issues, it was overshadowed by the broader social biases that shaped how voters perceived her ability to lead. Many Americans, consciously or unconsciously, struggled to reconcile their personal perceptions of power with the idea of a woman of colour in the White House. These biases were not limited to the Republican base but were also pervasive among moderates and independents who might have otherwise supported her policies. The result was a widespread reluctance to cast a vote for Harris, even though her policy agenda aligned with the desires of many voters.

The undercurrent of racial and gender bias Harris faced in 2024 mirrored the challenges faced by Clinton in 2016. While Clinton was often depicted as too “ambitious or unlikable” because of her gender, Harris, similarly, faced scepticism about her leadership, as voters questioned whether a woman of colour could truly embody the authority of the presidency. This dynamic reinforced the deeply ingrained notion that leadership, especially at the highest level, should look a certain way: male and White. Harris’s candidacy brought this issue to the forefront of the national conversation, but the election results suggested that overcoming these biases requires more than just having the right policies. It requires a shift in the American electorate’s expectations of leadership.

Swing State dynamics and a hesitation for change

The key battleground states, where the election was ultimately decided, revealed the full extent of the hesitation many voters had when it came to Harris’s candidacy. Exit polls from states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona demonstrated that while many voters were initially open to her candidacy, a significant number ultimately chose to back Trump or another candidate who embodied a more traditional vision of leadership. For many swing-state voters, Harris’s identity as a woman of colour made her an unfamiliar and, to some, uncomfortable candidate. This hesitation to vote for Harris was not rooted in her policies or qualifications but in the cultural discomfort that her identity as a woman of colour stirred.

This dynamic highlights a broader reluctance in American society to embrace leadership that deviates from the established norms. Even as voters expressed support for progressive policies, they were ultimately unwilling to challenge the long-standing political order. Swing-state voters, many of whom might have leaned toward supporting progressive economic and social policies, could not fully embrace the idea of a woman as president. Instead, they gravitated toward the perceived stability and familiarity offered by Trump, who, despite his divisive politics, represented a more traditional and comfortable model of leadership.

Policy clarity meets societal constraints

Kamala Harris’s candidacy was marked by clarity of vision and a pragmatic policy approach aimed at addressing some of America’s most urgent issues. Her focus on economic recovery, healthcare reform, and racial justice was in line with the preferences of a broad segment of the American electorate. However, the election revealed that even clear, actionable policy proposals were insufficient in overcoming the societal biases that shape perceptions of leadership in the U.S.

Polling in key battleground states suggested that many voters supported Harris’s platform, but when it came time to make their choice, they hesitated to cast their ballots for her. This reflects the reality that in the American political system, policy alone is not enough to overcome the entrenched biases surrounding leadership. Voters, particularly in swing states, were reluctant to endorse Harris because of her identity. Despite her qualifications and compelling vision for the country, the resistance to her candidacy reveals that American society is still deeply divided on the question of who is deemed “acceptable” to lead the nation.

The gender gap in political legitimacy

The results of the 2024 election further emphasize the enduring gender and racial biases that shape American politics. Despite the rhetoric of progress and inclusion, the American electorate remains uncomfortable with the idea of a woman of colour as president. This reflects the broader cultural norms that continue to hold sway in the political sphere, where leadership is still seen through a lens of White male authority. Harris’s loss serves as a reminder that political legitimacy in the U.S. is still largely defined by gendered and racialized expectations, and these expectations are difficult to overcome, even for a candidate with Harris’s vision, qualifications, and bipartisan appeal.

A vision beyond the glass ceiling

Kamala Harris’s candidacy raised profound questions about the future of American politics and the challenges women face in reaching the highest levels of power. Her loss in 2024, despite her clear policy vision and broad appeal, underscores the hard truth that America is not yet ready to fully embrace a female leader. The 2024 election results reveal a society still deeply entrenched in traditional ideas of leadership, where gender and race continue to play significant roles in shaping voter behaviour.

Harris’s historic candidacy, while a step forward in terms of representation, ultimately highlighted the deep-seated cultural barriers to diversity in leadership. The election outcomes suggest that for America to truly embrace progress, it must confront its longstanding biases and recalibrate its understanding of what leadership should look like. Harris’s loss is a call to action for future generations of political leaders and a reminder that achieving true equality in leadership will require more than just policy proposals, it will require a shift in the fundamental values that define political legitimacy in America.