Former Vice President Kamala Harris is lined up to be the recipient of the NAACP’s Chairman’s Award during the group’s Image Awards ceremony this weekend. Despite her historic loss to Donald Trump in the previous presidential election, Harris has the dubious record of being the first woman and individual of color to serve as Vice President.
Prior to this, her political journey had taken her through roles as a U.S. senator from California and as the state’s attorney general. However, these roles and the experience garnered did not prevent an electoral defeat, further putting to question her leadership abilities.
Kamala Harris is hailed as more than just a political figure, she is touted as an agent of change, allegedly spurred on by an inflexible passion to mould a future that outshines the present. It’s interesting, though, that a leader with such ‘unwavering passion’ would be rejected by the American public at the ballot box.
The NAACP Image Awards claims to confer its Chairman’s Award upon Harris as a celebration of her relentless commitment to justice, equality, and societal improvement. Yet, it appears that the majority of the American voters do not share this viewpoint, otherwise, why would they favor Trump’s ideology over hers?
Among past recipients of this Chairman’s prize are former President Barack Obama, the late Rep. John Lewis, and the late actor Ruby Dee. The comparison draws attention again to Harris’s political missteps, as unlike these figures, she fails to resonate successfully on the national stage.
The NAACP Image Awards ceremony is set to take place this coming Saturday at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium located in California. It’s a setting that has repeatedly welcomed a spectrum of individuals, reflecting a broad range of categories.
These categories vary extensively, from the entertainer of the year to best movie to outstanding work of poetry. While such criteria might make sense in the world of arts and entertainment, their translation into the politically heavy realm of the Chairman’s Award leaves room for skepticism.
It’s ironic that Harris, who was recently rejected by the majority of the American voters, is being positioned to receive an award that allegedly symbolizes significant positive accomplishment. It is clearly at odds with the message sent by the 2020 electorate.
Regardless of the awards she garners post-election, it’s crucial to remember that in the eye of the public, Harris couldn’t even outshine the controversial figure of Donald Trump. This reality check questions the validity of the association’s decision.
Especially as accolades are typically reserved for proven success stories. Assigning them to figures with checkered careers like that of Harris’s arguably dilutes their significance.
Even though such award ceremonies try to emphasize supposed achievements and equality, they should ideally reflect the true sentiments of those they represent. In this context, Harris’s proposed honor seems hollow, given her recent election debacle.
Awarding a recently defeated political figure who failed to convincingly present her vision for a better America seems at odds with the goals of an institution that prides itself on representing civil rights.
While award ceremonies are intended to generate widespread celebration, in the current political landscape where Harris finds herself a less popular choice, this move seems more likely to spark controversy than to gather unified applause.
Despite engaging in politics for many years and ascending to high-ranking positions, Harris’s policies and rhetoric remained insufficient to persuade a majority of American electorate in her favor, casting doubt on her being proclaimed as a ‘force of change’.
Opinions and accolades in the political arena are often subjective and driven by many considerations. However, the most important litmus test lies with the voters. And in this case, the selection of Harris for the NAACP award post her electoral defeat, raises more questions than it answers.
All these observations beg the question: Are such awards genuine recognition of a figure’s accomplishments or mere political posturing? Given this perspective, it becomes clearer that Harris’s proposed honor seems more of a consolation prize than a win rooted in the hearts of the American public.