The New York Times - USA (2020-10-15)

A20 Y THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONALTHURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2020

The 45th PresidentThe Supreme Court

The line was familiar. The
follow-up was not.
Senator Kamala Harris came
ready to press her case against
Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the
second day of this week’s Su-
preme Court confirmation hear-
ings, asking if she had been
aware of President Trump’s
promise to nominate judges who
would repeal former President
Barack Obama’s signature health
care law.
The question concluded with
one of Ms. Harris’s characteristic
refrains, one she memorably
leveled against Justice Brett M.
Kavanaugh two years ago: “I’d
appreciate a yes-or-no answer,
please.”
Like Justice Kavanaugh, Judge
Barrett seemed briefly perplexed
by Ms. Harris. “I want to be very,
very careful,” Judge Barrett said.
“I’m under oath.”
But unlike then, Ms. Harris let
Judge Barrett’s tentative answer
slide, hinting at what could be-
come her new professional reali-
ty as a No. 2 to the most powerful
man in politics.
Before joining the Democratic
ticket as Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s
running mate, Ms. Harris was
known as a politician with a
withering prosecutorial style and
a skill for crafting viral clips. She
built her national brand on high-
stakes moments — judiciary
hearings, the Democratic prima-
ry debate stage — that she
molded to her advantage, her
years as a district attorney on
display as she grilled adversar-
ies.
Now she is trying to balance
her penchant for forceful ex-
changes with her duties as the
vice-presidential nominee. After
all, being vice president means
checking your ego at the Oval
Office door.
From her opening remarks to
her questioning on Wednesday,
she cut a more restrained profile,
using her platform at the confir-

mation hearings to amplify Mr.

Biden’s message while studiously

avoiding any maneuvers that

could jeopardize his lead in the

polls. Even her decision to moni-

tor the proceedings from her

Senate office rather than in per-

son because of the dangers

posed by the coronavirus re-

inforced Mr. Biden’s case that his

administration would be a more

responsible steward of public

health than Mr. Trump’s.

Her first round of questioning

focused squarely on health care

and women’s reproductive rights,

closely adhering to the cam-

paign’s strategy of linking the

Supreme Court vacancy to two

issues of deep importance to

Democrats.

“Let’s not make any mistake

about it: Allowing President

Trump to determine who fills the

seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg — a

champion for women’s rights and

a critical vote in so many deci-

sions that sustained the right to

choose — poses a threat to safe

and legal abortion in our coun-

try,” Ms. Harris said on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, she ran

through a list of top-of-mind

Democratic issues, quizzing

Judge Barrett on racial justice,

climate change and workers’

rights. Yet, even as she repeat-

edly pressed the judge, her ques-

tioning yielded no immediately

explosive moments — both a

reflection of Judge Barrett’s

deftness as a judicial nominee

and Ms. Harris’s increasing

awareness of her new position.

“Do you agree that voting

discrimination exists, based on

race, in America in any form?”

Ms. Harris asked.

Her measured performance

reflects the way many Demo-

crats view the battle for the

Supreme Court: a fight they will

lose in service of one they might

win.

With Republicans holding a

firm majority in the Senate,

Democrats recognize they will

almost certainly not be able to

prevent Judge Barrett’s confir-

mation to the court, and many

cautioned against criticizing her

directly. Instead, Democratic

activists, officials and the cam-

paign are urging members of the

party to filter their arguments

through the lens of the election

and to focus on issues that play

well among swing voters.

For Ms. Harris, there is little

political benefit in harsh personal

attacks on Judge Barrett. The

committee questioning is un-

likely to change the outcome of a

confirmation hearing, but a

misstep could damage the Demo-

cratic presidential ticket’s

chances with more moderate

voters. And the kind of liberal

voter who is following a Twitter

play-by-play of the confirmation

hearings — and who would have

seen a critical exchange — is

already energized to support Mr.

Biden.

The consolation prize for los-

ing the court for a generation,

some Democrats privately argue,

could be winning control of the

Senate — and the White House.

Along with Ms. Harris, many

Democratic senators focused

their questions on the possibility

that Judge Barrett would vote

with the conservative majority

on the court to overturn the

health care law, a message simi-

lar to the one that helped Demo-

crats win control of the House in

2018.

The discussion of health care

emerged as such a strong theme

that even Republicans couldn’t

help noticing.

“At times, I have been con-

fused and I thought we were on

the Health Committee instead of

the Judiciary Committee, be-

cause it has been such a central

talking point for every Demo-

crat,” said Senator Ted Cruz, a

Republican from Texas. “I get

that’s their election message.”

Ms. Harris and Democrats saw

a similar opportunity to mobilize

suburban women on abortion

rights, given Ms. Barrett’s well-

documented personal opposition

to abortion and criticism of Roe

v. Wade, the landmark ruling that

legalized abortion nationwide.

Most Americans say that abor-

tions should be legal with some

restrictions.

While some Republicans

praised Ms. Barrett’s opposition

to abortion rights, they con-

sciously chose not to make the

issue a central focus of their

questioning — unlike their Dem-

ocratic opponents.

For the Biden campaign, Ms.

Harris’s disciplined performance

came as a relief. A former rival

who landed some of the toughest

attacks on Mr. Biden from the

debate stage during the primary,

Ms. Harris spent much of her

vice-presidential vetting process

persuading those closest to the

former vice president that she

would be focused on his cam-

paign, rather than on her future

ambitions. Some Biden allies still

view her with lingering mistrust.

Ms. Harris’s approach during

the confirmation hearings fol-

lows a similarly deliberate per-

formance during vice-presiden-

tial debate last week, aimed at

keeping the pressure on the

Republican ticket rather than

reshaping the race.

Though she sharply chal-

lenged Vice President Mike

Pence on the Trump administra-

tion’s handling of the coronavirus

— calling it “the greatest failure

of any presidential administra-

tion in the history of our coun-

try” — the debate had none of

the fireworks or television-ready

lines that have punctuated some

of her past encounters.

Still, there have been flashes of

Ms. Harris’s combativeness.

“I imagine you were sur-

rounded by a team of folks that

helped prepare you for this nomi-

nation hearing,” Ms. Harris said

icily on Tuesday when Judge

Barrett equivocated on whether

she knew of Mr. Trump’s promise

to appoint judges who would

overturn the health care law.

“Did they inform you of the

president’s statements and that

this might be a question that was

presented to you during the

course of this hearing?”

But mostly, she proved herself

a loyal soldier, just as she had

convinced the Biden campaign

she would be.

NEWS ANALYSIS

New Strategy for Harris at Barrett Hearings: Don’t Make Waves

By SYDNEY EMBER

and LISA LERER

Senator Kamala Harris monitored the hearings from her office because of coronavirus dangers.

HILARY SWIFT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Biden’s running mate

is known for her

prosecutorial style.

a powerful but tricky credential.
A woman who is professionally
successful and ambitious is often
seen as threatening or off-
putting, researchers have found
in multiple surveys of voters, but
being a mother tempers that. It
makes women seem warm and
relatable — and suggests they
can relate to voters’ lives, too.
Yet Americans are also ambiv-
alent about mothers who work,
forcing women to negotiate an
obstacle course of perceptions
and expectations.
Little of this is required of
men. Compare, for example, the
confirmation hearings in 1986 of
Justice Antonin Scalia, a mentor
of Judge Barrett. Senators wel-
comed his children to the hear-
ings and offered them breaks,
but spent little, if any, time con-
necting his fatherhood to his
professional life. Justice Brett
Kavanaugh spoke of coaching his

daughters’ basketball teams, but
there was little focus on his fam-
ily life as a qualification.
“It’s that tightrope that women
have to walk that men don’t,”
said Christine Matthews, a Re-
publican pollster at Bellwether
Research and Consulting, who
focuses on female voters and has
been critical of President Trump.
“If you’re a mom of young kids,
how are you managing that? If
you’re a career woman with no
kids, do you just not understand
my life? You have to address that
before you can move on.”
For Judge Barrett, the focus on
her motherhood seemed, on one
level, to stem from awe that a
woman could have such a suc-
cessful career while parenting
such a large brood. “How do you
and your husband manage two
full-time professional careers
and, at the same time, take care
of your large family?” Senator
John Cornyn of Texas said.
This is a question female pub-
lic figures commonly face but
male ones rarely do, according to
research by the Barbara Lee
Family Foundation. Voters will
consistently express concern
about how a candidate with
young children can handle both

her family and professional roles,

the foundation’s research sug-

gests, even when they know

that’s a standard they do not

apply to men.

The implication is that caregiv-

ing is the responsibility of wom-

en, and that a woman with child

care responsibilities may not

have the time or capacity to

handle matters of state, re-

searchers said.

Judge Barrett and Ms. Harris

are seeking high-profile public

jobs in a political climate in

which both parties are making

special efforts in every arena to

court women, particularly subur-

ban women. President Trump,

who is far behind Joseph R.

Biden Jr. in support among fe-

male voters, made a direct ap-

peal to them at a rally in Penn-

sylvania this week. “Suburban

women, would you please like

me?” he said. “I saved your

damn neighborhood, OK?”

“The whole idea is really about

turning the home into a political

space, and then asking, ‘What

would a mother be concerned

about?’ ” said Seyward Darby,

author of “Sisters in Hate: Amer-

ican Women on the Front Lines

of White Nationalism.” “She

would be concerned about the

safety of her children. She would

be concerned about the safety of

her communities.”

In this atmosphere, mother-

hood becomes an important

strategic tool. It helps female

candidates appeal to specific

voters, telling them that they

know, firsthand, what life is like

for American families, analysts

said.

In the confirmation hearings,

Republicans are using mother-

hood to fend off portrayals of

Judge Barrett as an inflexible

conservative. Responding to

Democrats who fear that con-

firming her could threaten the

Affordable Care Act, for example,

Senator Charles E. Grassley

suggested that her experience

taking children to the pediat-

rician would inform her legal

views: “As a mother of seven,

Judge Barrett clearly under-

stands the importance of health

care.”

Emphasizing a woman’s ma-

ternal side also makes any po-

tential critique of her seem dis-

tasteful.

“The Republican members of

the judiciary are introducing her

as a legal titan who drives a

minivan,” Ms. Matthews said.

“They are in some ways daring

the Democrats to step all over a

minivan mom.”

At Tuesday’s hearing, the

Democratic Senator Dianne

Feinstein did the opposite, ask-

ing Judge Barrett if she had a

“magic formula” for handling

motherhood and career so well.

Motherhood tends to take the

edge off ambition and forceful-

ness, traits that, when seen in a

woman, can carry negative con-

notations. Ms. Harris’s Sunday

dinners and Converse sneakers

may show she’s more than a

former prosecutor, analysts said.

“Women who present them-

selves as having masculine traits

like being a leader need to bal-

ance them out with what’s seen

as feminine expertise,” said Jill

Greenlee, author of “The Political

Consequences of Motherhood”

and a political scientist at Bran-

deis. “Kamala Harris’s law-and-

order background is more mas-

culine, so the motherhood part

makes it strategic, to see herself

as warm to balance it out.”

This expectation that female

politicians should also be moth-

ers can be traced back to the U.S.

women’s suffrage movement.

In the late 19th and early 20th

centuries, those who opposed

women’s right to vote suggested

that politics was antithetical to a

woman’s primary duty of raising

children and that letting women

enter the political sphere would

undermine traditional gender

roles.

In the 1910s, the suffragists

argued that, in fact, motherhood

and being politically active were

not mutually exclusive — being a

mother would make women

better voters because they would

be driven selflessly by the inter-

ests of their family, and voting

would make them better mothers

by enabling them to support

issues they cared about.

But characterizations of ca-

reer-minded women as aberra-

tions from traditional gender

norms have long animated con-

servatives and anti-feminists,

researchers said.

It was one of the main argu-

ments undergirding the cam-

paign, led by Phyllis Schlafly in

the 1970s, to defeat the Equal

Rights Amendment, which would

have enshrined equality “on

account of sex” into the constitu-

tion. The amendment, Mrs.

Schlafly’s “Stop ERA” campaign

argued, would steer women

dangerously far from their tradi-

tional roles in the home.

The modern-day incarnation of

political motherhood began in

1980, according to research, with

the emergence of a large gender

gap in voting. Politicians began

courting mothers, particularly

white suburban ones, the so-

called soccer moms of the 1990s

and a group that remains a key

to this year’s election.

Until recently, while many men

began their political careers in

their 20s, women often waited

until they had raised families.

Nancy Pelosi had five children,

and first ran for office in 1987 at

age 47, when they were grown.

Recent presidential elections

show how female candidates’

strategies began to evolve. Hilla-

ry Clinton, after downplaying her

domestic life for years, made her

role as mother and grandmother

central to her 2016 campaign.

Sarah Palin ran for vice presi-

dent as a “hockey mom” with a

newborn.

By the 2018 midterm elections,

many female candidates fully

embraced motherhood, making it

a central part of their campaigns.

Ads showed them pregnant or

breastfeeding and making the

case that being a mother made

them uniquely qualified.

“Twenty years ago, women

were urged not to present them-

selves as a complex human

being,” said Amanda Hunter,

research and communications

director at the Barbara Lee

Family Foundation. Ms. Harris,

she said, is representative of a

new kind of candidate: “She’s

showing different parts of her life

rather than focusing on her

résumé, and that’s an overall

shift.”

Perhaps the focus on the mod-

ern-day version of political moth-

erhood could fundamentally

remake the image of a leader.

“We think of leadership as

masculine norms, but good lead-

ership is about being compas-

sionate and providing social

good,” Professor Greenlee said.

“Maybe if women play to the

stereotypes, they are also just

presenting themselves authenti-

cally, and trying to change the

notion of what a political leader

should be and what governance

should look like and policy issues

should be.”

Seeking Public Office,

Mothers Still Facing

Jumbled Expectations

DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES

From Page A

The Upshot provides news,
analysis and graphics about
politics, policy and everyday life.

nytimes.com/upshot

BOB DAUGHERTY/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Judge Amy Coney Barrett and family met with President Trump

and Melania Trump before her presentation as his Supreme

Court pick. Male nominees, like Antonin Scalia, far left, and

Brett Kavanaugh, are rarely judged over their families.

ERIN SCHAFF FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES