IS THE ELECTION OF KAMALA HARRIS TO VP A TURNING POINT FOR THE SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT?
The outcome and consequences of the 2020 US elections will have been an unforgettable, and significant record in the history books to come. Perhaps the most vicious and poignant attacks on US democracy have unfolded after the results, along with an unprecedented 2nd impeachment of a president. More positively, the white republican male, formerly acting as Vice President, Mike Pence, is replaced with a democrat, and the first woman, and person of colour to be Vice President, namely Kamala Harris. Although progressives will be overjoyed to see the back of Pence, some reserve this feeling towards the succession of Kamala Harris. Her tempestuous past with justice reform, has left some feeling underwhelmed at the unprecedented election of a woman of colour. Many have questioned the “girlboss” sentiment of the liberal feminist movement, fighting against the notion that mere representation is valuable, in and of itself, without the action necessary for social progression.
Past and Future
VP Harris’s past is filled with controversial and often contradictory stances. Many of the attacks on her record as attorney general and district attorney, from the left, may hold merit. For example, in 2014, the US supreme court ruled that overcrowding in California prisons was so great, that it was tantamount to unconstitutional punishment, Harris fought to release prisoners, effectively going against the order to make all nonviolent second strike offenders be eligible for parole after serving half their sentence. A similar opposition was seen to the Assembly Bill 86, which would have required Harris’s office to investigate fatal shootings involving police officers, and has previously suggested that such legislation was unnecessary, saying; “where there are abuses, we have designed the system to address them.”. These cases contradict her supposed “progressive prosecutor” identity, and resemble a more conservative, “tough on crime” approach to criminal justice reform.
However, her record has not been completely littered with traditional approaches to criminal justice Kamala has been applauded for her overwhelmingly successful “Back on Track” programme, in which non violent first time drug offenders could avoid jail by receiving a high school diploma. She’s initiated measures to make the police force more transparent to the public, launching “OpenJustice”, a “first of its kind” database detailing crime statistics collected by the state, winning the support of many activists.
I honestly remain agnostic on whether her record and actions are supportive of the social justice movement. There are a plethora of times where, as district attorney and attorney general, she has either stayed silent on issues of importance, or has contradicted the progressive stances that she claims to have adhered to.
However, although Harris’s record has been conflicting at best, her proposals and promises within the last few years may provide optimism to the justice movement. For the majority of recent US history, the principles of social justice have been blocked off from the executive branch, setting a low bar for what would constitute a “radical” change in its approach to criminal and social justice. When one places themselves in left leaning and progressive circles, we tend to have a warped perspective on what constitutes centrism. Beliefs and policies taken as a given within such circles, can be profoundly radical when compared to the status quo of American politics. Harris has vowed to legalize marijuana, end mandatory minimums and private prisons, and to abolish the death penalty, positions more conducive of progressive change than any held by any former VP’s. The early days of the Biden-Harris Administration have already taken measures to fulfill one of such aims, namely signing an executive order ending the extension of contracts with private prisons. We tend to forget the direction the American approach to criminal justice has taken, and must recognize that the proposed aims and policies of the new VP represent a major diversion in its current path.
Is representation valuable?
Amongst those who look at the election of Kamala Harris with more pessimism, some have reacted unhappily to the joyful reaction of some liberals to the selection of the first woman of colour as VP. “Is it any better to be bombed or waterboarded by a woman of colour than a white male?”, they say, implying that being a woman of colour in power is meaningless and ineffectual if one’s actions are not positive for the social justice movement. However, even if I agreed that Harris’s actions were a counterproductive to the social justice aim, her race and gender does send a message. For one representation in power normalises the prospect of minority groups engaging in politics. This can be within the political arena, helping erode biases of coming or existing political actors, or towards minority groups who saw the prospect of them being represented in seats of power as once being impossible. Not to mention that the election of a minority is a sign of change worth celebrating. To use a hypothetical, if there were two women, one white and the other black, with the same exact views running for election, and neither had a lead, would this not give us an indication of the views and biases of the voter base? Namely that the voter base had no preference on the race of the woman. Within the case of the 2020 election, Harris’s election is likely an indication that being a minority is becoming increasingly less of a factor in repelling voters.
The American women’s suffrage movement of the late 19th century, and the early 20th century, was often infamously quite racist. Popular suffragists, like Susan B Anthony, often contributed to the disenfranchisement of black people, playing on fears of African domination in order to further her political cause. However, very few would say that white american women being allowed to vote in 1920 was a bad thing, and even fewer would say that such women being allowed to vote, did not actually send a positive message to girls and women. Granting women the right to vote would have undoubtedly sent a message of female inclusion within politics, eroding the notion that politics was solely a place for men. This sentiment is true today. For example, the majority of those who criticized Trump’s transgender military ban, were left leaning individuals, of which a large portion do not see the U.S army as a force for good. The argument was rarely ever along the lines of Trump unfairly excluding them from a virtuous cause, or that the inclusion of trans people would somehow make the cause more benevolent, but rather that exclusion in general hinders the normalisation of trans people within the workplace. Kamala’s cause may be unfortunate to some, and some may still be understandably apathetic to her election, but this does not negate the value she brings by merely being a woman of colour.
Thus, I hope to offer some optimism on the future of Harris’s time in office. To use a famous analogy: The election of Kamala Harris is not a marriage. It’s a bus ticket. You’re not always waiting for the one that will get you directly to your end destination. You’re getting on the bus that gets you closer to your destination.
