Right From the Start: Kamala’s Gravitas Problem

Do you recall when George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney as his vice-presidential running mate? The media repeatedly emphasized Cheney’s ‘gravitas.’ The subtext was to contrast Bush’s perceived lack of sophistication with Cheney’s extensive government experience, including roles as Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff, suggesting that Cheney would bring a needed seriousness to the ticket. 

Gravitas, derived from the Latin for ‘seriousness’ or ‘weight,’ is characterized by confidence, credibility, composure, connection, expertise, clarity, conviction, decisiveness, and respect. It’s an intangible yet noticeable quality that commands respect and instills confidence and trust in others.

These attributes are abundant in Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance. Trump’s gravitas comes from years of building his corporate empire and negotiating with peers, unions, politicians, and bureaucrats.

Lest I be accused of sexism or racism in my quest for political gravitas, I would note that Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice, and Nikki Haley all exemplified this type of command presence when they entered a room or delivered a speech.

Vice President Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is rarely associated with gravitas. When she stepped forward to lead the Democrat ticket, her qualifications were based around words like ‘women’, ‘black’ and ‘young”, not as an imposing figure. She is perceived to have less gravitas than every other Biden administration cabinet member, except for Pete Buttigieg.

The reasons are twofold. Firstly, Harris’s political career was propelled by her relationship with Willy Brown, the married mayor of San Francisco, and her subsequent appointments when he became Speaker of the California General Assembly. Secondly, her speeches often lack coherence, expertise, or intellect, drawing criticism even from left-wing commentators.

Confidence and decisiveness remain vital for gravitas, which is essential for executive presence. World leaders like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Benjamin Netanyahu are noted for their gravitas.

Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg are seen as lacking the gravitas necessary for navigating complex issues and confronting global leaders like Putin rogue nation like Iran or terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Even the left leaning Brookings institute observed: “Overall, she must convince undecided Americans that she has the clarity, knowledge, and gravitas needed to be an effective president—in foreign policy and defense as well as domestic policy.”

Touted as a potential Harris VP pick, Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, possesses the gravitas her ticket needs. However, as a Jewish man, he faces challenges within the Democrat party, which has recently become tolerant of anti-Semitism and supporting terrorists. Harris’s anti-Semitic stance on terrorism is also controversial, as evidenced by her absence from Netanyahu’s address to Congress.

President Trump’s natural gravitas is evident to those around him. His presence reassures, motivates, and inspires loyalty, demonstrating that gravitas isn’t about being the loudest but about exuding a presence that commands attention. Many have suggested his gravitas was the singular factor in the unity on display at the Republican convention.

The concept of gravitas is a multifaceted attribute that plays a crucial role in the perception of political leaders. It encompasses a range of qualities from confidence and expertise to decisiveness and respect. Donald Trump exudes this commanding presence; Kamala Harris is widely perceived as lacking this quality. 

Ultimately, gravitas contributes significantly to a president’s executive presence, influencing their ability to inspire, motivate, and earn the trust of the American people, our allies and peers on the global stage. In a perfect world, this quality should be a key factor for voters in assessing political candidates and their potential impact on national security, global diplomacy and international affairs.