Tressie McMillan Cottom has a column in the NYT that is worth a read, On Cat Ladies, Mama Bears and ‘Momala’. In the piece, she makes an argument about what she sees as a potential trap being laid by Trump, Vance, and the GOP for Harris on the topic of motherhood. Morever see argues that Harris should fight over the politics of motherhood on her own terms, not theirs.
All female political candidates are expected to narrate their motherhood status or, at least, their mother-like qualities. But no other presidential candidate had to meet this challenge the way Harris will. Watching this campaign wrestle with the G.O.P.’s motherhood purity test, so far, has been a lesson in how not to fall for dog whistle traps.
She makes some interesting observations about Harris’ position as a Black woman and the child of immigrants which includes a comparison to Sarah Palin that I think is insightful. Instead of trying to excerpt those portions, I simply commend the article. It fits into the broader conservation on fertility politics.
I will share her basic conclusion:
The Harris campaign has, so far, toned down the mother-in-chief narrative that her 2020 primary campaign prioritized. Instead, they are focusing on how, as vice president, she has championed policies that benefit all mothers, like child care, maternity leave and motherhood mortality research. She led the Biden administration’s first Maternal Health Day of Action. As a candidate, she is working family-friendly policies into her economic platform, such as restoring the administration’s child tax credit, giving families with a newborn a $6,000 credit, and expanding the earned-income tax credit for low-wage workers. That is not as powerful as the G.O.P. mama bear symbolism. But it does not have to be.
This strikes me as correct, and wise on the Harris campaign’s part. And it is a clear contrast with the Trump/Vance approach:
It also underscores how Trump and Vance have very few pro-family policy proposals for actual babies, as opposed to talking about imagined babies that women should be having.
Indeed, one of the many reasons my views of the “pro-life” movement have changed considerably is that precise issue: concern about the imagined babies, but doing precious little to help the actual ones.
A conclusory side-note: I have to admit, this lept out at me, given some of the discourse I see on occasion in the comment sections here at OTB:
The G.O.P., in particular, has tapped into white male rage about women — especially educated white women — who can choose when and how they will have children. As a result, some commentators have begun to call this election the presidential contest of the genders, with male grievance finding an outlet in Trump’s brand of big man politics and women finding resonance for their post-Dobbs rage in the Democratic Party.
