• Ideas
  • politics

Don’t Underestimate Kamala Harris’ Good Vibes Only Campaign

5 minute read
Ideas
Alaimo, PhD is associate professor of communication at Fairleigh Dickinson University and author of Over the Influence: Why Social Media Is Toxic for Women and Girls — And How We Can Take It Back. She’s a former communicator in the Obama administration and United Nations

Kamala Harris’ presidential run against Donald Trump is nearing its final act. And while Trump has repeatedly threatened to undermine democracy and leveled vicious personal attacks against her, throughout the campaign so far, the public seen never seen Harris get mad—in fact, she’s full of joy. Her campaign is playfully tapping into the latest social media trends and memes. And rather than complaining and insulting people like Donald Trump, she’s laughing and smiling on the campaign trail. “The thing we like about hard work is we have fun doing hard work,” she told autoworkers in Michigan.

Pundits have largely interpreted this as a classic expression of Black joy—a form of incredible resilience in the face of the ugly challenges Black people have long faced in the U.S.—or complained that joy can’t substitute for smart policies (true).

But Harris’ campaign has never suggested joy is a policy. It’s a political strategy, and we’re radically underestimating just how smart it is. Adopting a joyful approach has simultaneously highlighted Trump’s biggest weaknesses (his age and cantankerousness), taken the spotlight off him and possibly endeared Harris to the majority of Americans who’ve had enough of our country’s uncivilized politics. It has also deprived Trump of the easiest line of attack he’d otherwise have against Harris—the same attack that Trump had against democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016: the contention that she’s crazy. Expressing rage would allow him to portray Harris as such.

“When a man becomes angry in an argument or debate, people are more likely to abandon their own positions and defer to his,” Soraya Chemaly writes in Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger. “But when a woman acts the same way, she’s likely to elicit the opposite response.”

It’s not just that people wouldn’t believe Harris if she appeared angry. Women candidates often have to walk a tightrope to appear presidential without displaying characteristics that the public accepts without question from men in the public eye. “Male candidates are allowed to yell, to be ‘passionate’ and volatile. It’s a mark of their dedication,” Gemma Hartley writes in FED UP: Emotional Labor, Women, and the Way Forward.” But, for a woman, “tipping anywhere near yelling means being labeled ‘shrill,’ and America has a serious problem with shrill women. Assertiveness turns from a leadership trait to a sign of instability when it is a woman on stage.”

As a Black woman, Harris is especially vulnerable. From early childhood, the behavior of Black women in the U.S. has historically been carefully policed for any perceived expression of dissatisfaction. For example, Black girls are 5.5 times more likely than white girls to be suspended from school, according to the National Women’s Law Center. And when Black women do try to share their concerns, they’re often simply ignored or written off as “too difficult.”

But eschewing anger isn’t just protecting Harris from political risks. It’s highlighting one of her biggest strengths: the enthusiasm with which her campaign has quickly been met.

Read More: The Reintroduction of Kamala Harris

What’s more, something feels fresh and youthful about the way Harris laughs and has fun on the campaign trail. Without lobbing a single insult, it paints a massive contrast with Trump’s two biggest weaknesses: he’s an angry septuagenarian.

The majority of people in the U.S. – 62%, to be exact– think Trump is too old to be president, according to a February ABC News/IPSOS poll. We’re also tired of our country’s ugly politics – literally.  Some 65% of Americans always or often feel exhausted when we think about politics, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey.

Harris’ refusal to rebut Trump’s mean insults and inaccurate claims – most famously, when she was asked in a CNN interview about Trump’s contention that she isn’t Black and responded that he was using the “same old tired playbook” before asking for the next question—is likely to appeal to voters who want more civility in our politics.

This approach is also undermining one of Trump’s main strategies on the campaign trail and as president: picking arguments with people. “It has long been clear that no spectacle is more absorbing than a fight,” Tim Wu wrote in The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside our Heads, which is why one of Trump’s signature strategies has been “continuous warfare.”

By not responding to his attacks, Harris isn’t participating in the spectacle. That’s had the effect of taking a lot of media attention off Trump—one of the most devastating things she could do to him personally and politically. Recall that the continuous coverage the media gave Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign—largely because his unorthodox tactics made for good entertainment—is one of the major things that helped him win that election. But this year, Harris is getting plenty of media attention of her own.

Of course, joy isn’t why voters should cast their ballots for Harris—they should be examining her policies, which she’s continuing to roll out on the trail and which are already having an impact on voters. (For example, low income voters now significantly favor Harris over Trump – a huge change from June, when they favored Biden by a mere 3 percentage points, according to a USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll released this week.) But this campaign tactic is making Harris a more formidable political candidate—and signaling to voters that she’ll go about getting things done in new, strategic ways. 

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.