The Cultural Wall: How Countries Could React to Kamala Harris as President Given Her Past Failures

By Stephen Zogopoulos, USNN World News

Kamala Harris, as the sitting Vice President, has a chance of ascending to the presidency in 2024. But how would world leaders—particularly those in countries that refuse to negotiate with female heads of state—react to her rise? More importantly, given Harris’s controversial track record, lack of direct public support, and allegations of her political elevation bypassing the democratic process, would they even respect her as a leader?

Cultural Resistance to Female Leadership

Many nations still harbor cultural biases against women in leadership, making diplomatic efforts with a female U.S. president challenging. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea, where male dominance in leadership is ingrained, may refuse to engage in serious negotiations with a woman at the helm. Historically, female leaders in these settings have struggled to command the same level of respect as their male counterparts, often facing skepticism or outright refusal from patriarchal governments.

The issue becomes even more complex when the leader in question is viewed as lacking legitimacy within her own country. Harris, who failed to secure a single vote from the American public as the Democratic presidential candidate, could be seen as politically weak. This absence of electoral mandate could fuel perceptions of her being a “puppet” leader—particularly in regimes that value political strength and hierarchy. Nations that are already reluctant to engage with female leaders may see Harris’s rise as evidence of political manipulation or a coup, further reducing their willingness to negotiate.

Kamala Harris’s Political Failures: A Liability Abroad

Harris’s political career has been marred by several high-profile controversies and failures. As Attorney General of California, she faced criticism for her harsh stance on criminal justice, especially when it came to defending policies that kept prisoners incarcerated beyond their eligible parole dates. Her record was labeled as overly punitive, and her office faced backlash for resisting meaningful criminal justice reform. Then-Governor Jerry Brown even enacted reforms that Harris had resisted, highlighting her reluctance to embrace progressive change.

Fast-forward to her 2020 presidential campaign, and Harris’s failure to gain traction was stark. She dropped out before a single vote was cast in the Iowa caucuses, signaling a lack of clear messaging, policy vision, and popular support. This led some to view her political ascent as the product of identity politics rather than earned merit—a perception that could further undermine her legitimacy on the global stage.

As Vice President, Harris named the Border Czar was tasked with addressing the immigration crisis at the southern U.S. border. Her performance in this role has been widely panned. Record numbers of migrants continue to cross into the U.S., and her efforts to tackle the root causes of migration in Central America have produced few tangible results. This failure has given critics, both domestically and internationally, ample fodder to question her competence in managing critical issues—something foreign leaders will undoubtedly note.

A “Coup” Perception: Lack of Voter Mandate

The heart of Harris’s potential legitimacy crisis lies in the fact that she was never voted into the position of presidential nominee. Many Americans view her as a figure who bypassed the traditional process, with President Joe Biden choosing her as his running mate in 2020 largely for diversity reasons rather than her qualifications or popularity. She became Vice President without winning a single primary state in the 2020 race, and her ascension to the presidency would follow a similar path, not through public support but through a political inheritance.

This lack of voter backing may significantly damage her ability to command international respect. World leaders, especially those in authoritarian regimes that value strongman tactics, may view her rise as a symptom of a weakened U.S. political system—a system that elevates leaders through behind-the-scenes deals rather than the will of the people. This perception could embolden adversaries, particularly those who rely on political legitimacy derived from popular support or iron-fisted control.

In the geopolitical landscape, where the U.S. is expected to lead from a position of strength, having a president perceived as weak or illegitimate could spell disaster for diplomatic efforts. Countries that traditionally resist female leadership would have even more reason to dismiss Harris, especially given her unpopularity at home.

Will Harris Command Respect?

Ultimately, Harris’s past failures and lack of direct voter mandate will likely hinder her ability to command respect on the world stage. Nations that already struggle with the idea of female leadership will find it even easier to dismiss her, especially if they view her presidency as the result of political maneuvering rather than a true reflection of the democratic will. Her record as Attorney General, her failed 2020 presidential campaign, and her contentious role as Vice President all raise serious questions about her capacity to lead the United States through complex international challenges.

In a world that increasingly values strong, legitimate leadership, Harris may struggle to gain the respect necessary to effectively govern. And if a significant portion of the American public already views her rise as undemocratic, it is hard to imagine how authoritarian leaders will respond any differently.

Kamala Harris’s potential presidency represents a historic moment for gender equality. Yet, it is her record and perceived political elevation without voter support that may cause the greatest challenges, not just at home, but on the international stage as well.

Most concerning is Harris’s inexperience in handling economic issues—an area where the next U.S. president will need to excel, especially given the current inflationary pressures and post-pandemic recovery struggles. Harris has not demonstrated a strong grasp of economic policy, nor has she put forth any substantial proposals to manage the kind of economic crises the U.S. faces today. Whether it’s responding to high inflation, managing federal debt, or ensuring sustainable job growth, Harris’s absence of a clear economic vision would leave the country vulnerable to further instability.

Her lack of decisive leadership and failure to articulate a coherent vision for America’s future only exacerbates the issue. A leader without a clear path forward can’t rally a nation, let alone guide it through turbulent times. Harris’s performance, marked by half-measures and vague political platitudes, would only deepen the country’s divisions and complicate efforts to steer the U.S. through ongoing domestic and international challenges.

A Harris Presidency would be a disaster for the United States of America.

Disclaimer:
This article is an opinion piece by Stephen Zogopoulos. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of USNN World News or its affiliates.