Washington Post opinion commentator Jennifer Rubin wrote the following on social media: “Her name is Harris or VP Harris. News reports calling her ‘Kamala’ may not be intentionally disrespectful or demeaning but that is how she is treated. It’s wrong.”
The assertion is logically dubious, since “her name” is also “Kamala.” It is also a bit perplexing that Rubin set forth such criticism, since she has referred to Kamala Harris simply as “Kamala” several times in just the past few days. Maybe Rubin draws the distinction that the first-name referencing is “disrespectful” and “demeaning” only insofar as it appears in “news reports.”
But even that charitable interpretation of Rubin’s claim leaves us with a question: Is it derogatory to refer to the presidential candidate in the same terminology as her own campaign refers to her?
- On Wednesday at 11:22 in the evening, I received a text message that opened with the following: “If you’ve been waiting for the *perfect* time to donate to Kamala’s presidential campaign, we’re here to tell you that TODAY is that day.”
- On Tuesday, I received a text that began: “This Sunday, Kamala announced that she is ready to earn and win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.”
- A campaign email sent this week states: “Kamala has spent her entire career — as a prosecutor, Attorney General, Senator, and Vice President — fighting for Americans.”
- Another email asks, in a slightly more desperate tone: “Will you answer Kamala’s call and rush a contribution of $25 or more to her campaign today?”
- When she spoke in Delaware on Monday, she did so with two large American flags and signs that said “Kamala” in the background.
I don’t know why the campaign often writes “Kamala” as opposed to “Kamala Harris,” “Harris,” or “VP Harris.” Perhaps it is a strategy to present her as relatable, perhaps her first name is just more memorable as a result of its uniqueness, or perhaps she simply prefers “Kamala.” But if there is some moral error in using merely “Kamala,” as Rubin suggests is the case, then the campaign itself is responsible for encouraging such phrasing.