Psychology: Haven’t the past few weeks been a bit of a frenzy in American politics? In March, President Joe Biden gave a State of the Union speech that showed he could be vigorous and feisty, and now … he’s out. Meanwhile, Republican sycophants took to their convention wearing pretend plasters on their ears in adulation for their nominee, Donald Trump, who had almost literally dodged a bullet.
Right now, it looks like the 2024 match will be between former president Trump and vice-president Kamala Harris.
Biden’s anointing of Harris saw an uncoordinated Republican frenzy of accusations and recriminations. Republican Representative Tim Burchett, was among the earliest to call out Harris as a “DEI hire”. DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion, and Burchett and other Republicans taking this line are saying Harris is where she is only because of her gender and skin colour. Burchett subsequently stated his regret for the statement, before adding, “But it was the truth.”
Senior Republican leadership have tried to crack down on this line of attack because, well, it looks childish.
But assuming Harris is confirmed as presidential nominee, we can expect rather a lot more sexism and racism. That may sound like a big call; after all, opposition to DEI initiatives can sound reasonable – shouldn’t we just hire the best people for the job?
Let’s put aside what I think are thinly veiled dog whistles from Republican elites to 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Clinton and Harris have in common that they’re women (duh!) and there are numerous studies that show Clinton either suffered because of sexist attitudes or Trump benefited from them.
For example, Kate Ratliff and colleagues’ studies found that, sure, people who score higher on measures of hostile sexism (old-fashioned misogyny) liked Trump more, and Clinton less, but misogyny trumped political identification. Put simply, sexism played a bigger role in dislike for Clinton than identifying as a conservative.
But this is somewhat contradicted by research sole-authored by Peter Glick, who proposed the distinction between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism (a preference for women to behave in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes). Glick found that women and men felt similarly about Clinton, but men liked Trump significantly more.
Hostile sexism worked towards Trump and against Clinton, but only among women, showing some women also hold misogynistic attitudes towards their own gender. Glick also reported that conservatism was a more important predictor of liking for Trump than was sexism.
But Harris is also multiracial; East Asian (Indian) and Jamaican-American. Post-2020-election research shows that Harris was seen most unfavourably by older white Republican men, who reported the least formal education. It looks like Harris gets a double whammy, with racism and sexism predicting less positive evaluations when we look at them separately. But people who are sexist are also more likely to be racist, and when they’re all considered together, it’s the racial resentment and prejudiced attitudes that beat out sexism. Where Harris may face an uphill battle will be more about her ethnic background than her gender.
Of course, the “DEI” accusations can draw on her gender and race, but we’re also seeing a revival of the “Birtherism” of Barack Obama’s presidency. The rumours about Obama focused on his place of birth, but for Harris, it’s because her parents were born in India and Jamaica. The fact that she is incontrovertibly a natural-born citizen apparently doesn’t cut it. In 2020, Trump said he had “heard” she was ineligible. The next few months will be a wild ride.
