Does Kamala Harris have a ‘Mommy’ Problem?
The 'parental' question that divides Americans and could spell trouble for the Harris campaign.
The adage goes that when America is looking for a ‘mommy’, they elect a Democrat and when they are looking for a ‘Daddy’, they elect a Republican.
The theory has no association with the gender of the candidates. Instead, it refers to the party that voters believe will solve the problems of the time.
Popularized by Aaron Sorkin’s hit show, the West Wing (Season 7, Episode 2), the ‘Mommy-Daddy’ theory of political identification is actually a concept born out of research done by the respected Pew Research Center (not invented by former MSNBC host Chris Matthews as is also often believed).
That research published in early 2010 found that Democratic candidates and policies made voters feel ‘Warmth’ whereas policies and candidates put forward by the Republican Party elicited feelings of ‘Strength’.
In the study, researchers asked Americans to prioritize 21 different issues and statements.
They found that the top 5 issues for Democrats were health care, the environment, aiding the poor, education and securing Medicare. They categorized these policies as ‘caring’ or ‘maternal’.
The Republicans on the other hand by a significant margin, prioritized strengthening the military, illegal immigration, influence of lobbyists, terrorism and morality. Researchers dubbed these policy areas as ‘protective or ‘paternal’.
Retrospectively applying the theory: In 2008, Americans were looking for a ‘Mommy’ to move the country from a war footing and back to a more sensible social center. They elected ‘Mommy Obama’. In 1980, after the challenging economic circumstances of the Carter administration, they were looking for a ‘Daddy’ to take control and assert US global dominance, and they elected Daddy Regan.
An interesting outlier from this dichotomy is that all voters – then and now –prioritized the economy above any of their partisan concerns.
Over time, commentators have come to define economic questions as a net positive for the challenger and a net negative for the incumbent. After all, if you oversee the economy and voters are concerned about it, it does not bode well for your chances.
Which brings us to the challenge in front of Kamala Harris with just 31 days to election day.
In addition to being the comparative incumbent – responsible for the state of the economy, she is facing the problem that America is actively monitoring two conflicts that have the potential to evolve into World War 3.
A fast-evolving war between Israel and proxy forces in Iran, Lebanon and other parts of the middle east as well as an ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe between Ukraine and Russia.
At the same time, voters remain concerned about illegal immigration at the Southern Border and an economy that seems fragile at best.
There is almost no political combat on Democrats preferred turf of health, education or the social contract.
So, as we edge towards the most consequential election of our time, voters appear to be looking for a ‘Daddy’ to solve their problems…and Donald Trump with his dog-whistle politics and disposition towards outlandish promises is appearing to fit the bill.