News & Politics

Kamala Harris Claims She Would Get Better Media Coverage If She Were a White Man

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

When even that indefatigable cheerleader for the hard Left, the New York Times, admits that a Leftist politician is in trouble, you can be sure that the trouble is very deep. The Times’ lengthy exploration of “the frustrations of Kamala Harris” was sympathetic, but the article’s subtitle summed up the crisis Harris is experiencing: The vice president’s allies are increasingly concerned that President Biden relied on her to win but does not need her to govern.” Of course, the people who are running things don’t need Old Joe to govern, either, but that’s another story. Harris, in any case, has a ready explanation for why she is failing at one of the easiest jobs in the world: racism, of course. Come on, man! What else could it be?

Harris’ explanation for her failings and the concomitant negative coverage she has received is buried in the thirteenth paragraph of the Times article, and even there it is tossed off casually: “Ms. Harris has privately told her allies that the news coverage of her would be different if she were any of her 48 predecessors, all of whom were white and male.”

This is exactly the explanation that will fly with much of the vice president’s base, who see themselves as perpetually victimized in this inveterately “white supremacist” country. That’s what the Left’s hysterical propaganda about “systemic racism” is all about: anytime a “person of color” such as Harris fails, she or he has a ready means to deflect responsibility onto someone else, that is, onto everyone’s favorite whipping boy, the white man.

And so now if Harris were “any of her 48 predecessors” as vice president, she says she would be receiving more favorable news coverage because if anything is true of the far-Left propaganda organs known as the mainstream media, it is that they are so systemically racist that can always be counted on to be kinder to a white male than to a female person of color.

Thus if Harris were Mike Pence or Dick Cheney, or Dan Quayle, or Spiro Agnew or Richard M. Nixon, she would be getting better press coverage now. If she were tainted by connection to Trump, or linked to the Iraq war or to corrupt dealings or Watergate, or thought of as an imbecile, the media would be giving her a pass right now, if only she were a white male. After all, the media never whispered a negative word about those vice presidents, or other luminaries who held the nation’s second spot, did they? They had the magic key: they were white men.

It’s hard to imagine that Kamala Harris actually believes this. Was she asleep for the first 56 years of her life? Did she not witness the staggeringly negative coverage those men and others got, which demonstrated that white men do not get and never have gotten a pass in the media?

Related: Kamala’s Response to the Question of Whether She Feels Underused Might Not Be What You’d Expect

Harris didn’t limit her bitter comparison to her immediate predecessors, either. Does she think that if John C. Breckinridge, who was vice president from 1857 to 1861 and then became a Confederate general, were suddenly to reappear in these hypersensitive times, that he would get more favorable coverage as a “racist” and “white supremacist” than she is getting now? There is no end to the absurdities that her comment leads to, but the primary example of how ridiculous the vice president is in saying this is close at hand. Has the vice president forgotten about a certain Donald J. Trump, by all accounts a white man, and the recipient of the most viciously negative media coverage in the history of the United States?

Harris almost certainly knows that her comment is achingly stupid. But she also knows that it’s good politics, from her vantage point, to throw red meat to the blue rubes, constantly reinforcing the sense of grievance and entitlement that the Democrat party so carefully cultivates and keeping alive a red flame of bitterness and anger that reliably gets Democrats elected. Without “systemic racism,” where would the Democrat party be today? Without its false claims of deep structural inequalities in the American system, no one would be moved to vote for an anti-American socialist party that wants to plunder Americans for the benefit of a globalist oligarchy.

Donald Trump campaigned on the slogan “Make America Great Again,” and worked to do so while he was president. Kamala Harris, by contrast, has only been elected to the various offices she has one by campaigning on the premise that America is actually a terrible place, full of racism and inequality, such that even when a little brown girl grows up to be vice president of the United States, there is the White Man again, making sure she cannot succeed.

It’s a vicious mythology, and if it isn’t checked, it’s going to do nothing less than destroy this nation.