The issue often raised when I’ve reported on female competitors for the presidency is “Does she hold the necessary grit to assume the role of chief of command?” A notable proportion of voters questioned Geraldine Ferraro’s fortitude due to her palpable vibrancy.
On the contrary, Hillary Clinton sparked fewer concerns as she positioned herself as a resolute supporter of military actions, evidenced by her approval for George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq and endorsing Barack Obama’s decision to bomb Muammar Gadafy’s Libya.
Hence, amidst the flurry of conflicts, it is not unexpected that the Republican party is scrutinising Kamala Harris’ level of resilience. Recently, Trump/Vance’s campaign launched an advertisement titled ‘Weakness’. This was preceded by an identical campaign against the pro-military figure Nikki Haley.
The underlying theme of the advertisement was the question of gender, strategising around the difficulties Kamala faces in cultivating support amongst both black and white working-class males. A poll conducted by Times/Siena College last month showed that 55% of participants believed Trump commanded respect from international leaders, compared to Harris’ 47%.
The advertisement challenges Harris’ ability to stand firm against countries such as China, Russia, Iran and Hamas. It creatively features actors mimicking figures like Vladimir Putin, Hamas soldiers and a tea-drinking Ayatollah, viewing videos of the aspiring presidential candidate. It concludes with four snippets of Kamala demonstrating her dance skills, far superior to Trump’s, followed by a shot of Trump with an army officer and a Secret Service agent on an airfield. The punchline declares, “America doesn’t require another TikTok entertainer. We require strength that will shield us.”
Amusingly, despite Trump’s lifestyle rooted in self-loathing and numerous business failures, his supporters misinterpret his brash confidence and contemptful smirks as a sign of masculinity. It’s perplexing. In fact, Trump is the one who frequently succumbs, exemplifying a feeble approach to foreign policy and playing into Putin’s hands.
During the weekend, he flamboyantly exploited the lone instance of his supposed bravery, his brush with death in Butler, Pennsylvania, by reverently revisiting the site of the assassination attempt, associating it with his pseudo-spiritual lion iconography. Although he solemnly pledged at the convention to never revisit the incident – claiming it was too emotionally distressful to recollect – he now indulges in the flattery from notable figures like Elon Musk and JD Vance, hoping to bolster sales of his $299 “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” sneakers bearing the image of his battered face and a clenched fist.
In his latest promotional video, he berates Harris for her supposed “anti-Israel” comments, insinuating that such remarks give Hamas the go-ahead to continue their attacks on Israelis. However, Harris has been vocal about her unyielding support for Israel’s right to protect itself and has even praised Israel’s execution of Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, labelling him an enemy to America.
Her noticeable empathy for Palestinians does, however, distinguish her from Biden. This element of compassion renders her vulnerable to manipulation in a world governed by Trump, where deceit, vilification, and division flourish.
To salvage his popularity ratings, Vance similarly feigned empathy during his debate with Tim Walz, contrary to David Axelrod’s prediction of a showdown between a Labrador and a Coyote. However, in a twist, it seemed as though two Labradors were sharing the stage.
Vance’s chilling act was a testament to the future of the Republican Party – false narratives stacked on more falsehoods, shrouded in an eerie shadow. It was like seeing a programmed machine rather than the typically abrasive right-wing instigator who once derogatorily dismissed Harris and admitted to fabricating racially prejudiced tales about immigrants to support a controversial narrative that benefits the Republican Party.
His stance on abortion is unwavering, he was, until recently, staunchly against IVF, and he holds disturbingly archaic views about the role women should play in American society. Yet, during the debate, he wore a façade of amiability and understanding. Vance’s contrived display of grief upon hearing of Walz’s teenage son’s firsthand encounter with gun violence was deeply unsettling.
The chameleon commonly known as JD Vance, once a beloved figure of Hollywood thanks to the film adaptation of his book “Hillbilly Elegy”, junior his colours to align with Trump’s politics. His wife Usha, an experienced advisor in debate, aided him to create a character persona to appeal more to female voters. Cunningly, Vance presented a liberal and understanding stance on abortion, offering women “choices” and extending condolences to a former friend who had experienced an abortion.
One female participant of the CNN interview was positively taken by his seemingly progressive stance and empathetic tone. Nevertheless, prior to his 40-year-old self embracing the politics of Trump, bid views on abortion could be deemed extreme. The prospect of needing an abortion in certain unfavourable states raises fear of potential death, should you be denied the necessary medical care. With physicians scared of incarceration, access to treatment is ominously limited.
The contrast is stark between Vance’s understanding voice in his book, where he asked for the Appalachian people to receive empathy and not mockery, and his ready transformation into a character lacking compassion, typifying migrants and females.
After nearly 90 minutes of Vance’s pretentious persona, his true face were revealed by opponent Walz when Vance declined to admit that Trump lost the recent elections. Vance contended, arguing that he’s concerned about what lays ahead. Ironically, this was arguably the most genuine statement from Vance throughout the night of making false claims about his positions and imagined Trump successes.
Clearly, Vance’s concern for the future was self-centred. Originally, this account was published in The New York Times.