America’s Glass Ceiling Remains − Here Are Some Of The Reasons Why A Woman May Have Once Again Lost The Presidency

BY FARIDA JALALZAI

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

ASSOCIATE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF 

LIBERAL ARTS AND HUMAN SCIENCES,

VIRGINIA TECH

Kamala Harris was a candidate of many firsts, including the first Black and South Asian woman to run for president as the Democratic nominee.

Her resounding, swift loss in the presidential race to Republican Donald Trump on Nov. 5, 2024, means many things to different people, including the fact that American voters are unable to break the glass ceiling and elect a woman as president.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Farida Jalalzai, a scholar of women political leaders and gender in politics, to better understand the significance of Harris’ defeat – and how the U.S. stands apart from other countries that have had female leaders.

How important was Kamala Harris’ gender in her loss?

I can’t say it was a main reason she lost. But what I can say is it was a factor that contributed to her lack of support, especially when you compare her performance with Joe Biden’s in the same places and with almost all of the same voting groups he won in 2020. Gender was part of the campaign landscape in many different ways this election. Trump and his supporters used insulting tropes about what a woman leader would look like on the world stage. He used a lot of misogynistic and racist appeals in his campaign and tried to mobilize voters in ways that aimed to reinforce patriarchy.

What does Harris’ loss say about where gender equality stands in the country?

I am not surprised that the glass ceiling for women in politics is still super durable in the U.S. This is an example of the country’s limits of making true progress on women’s empowerment and equality. Of course, the fact that Harris was a woman of color vying to be the first woman president of the U.S. is pertinent.

Trump asserted that the country needs a strong man to lead. He portrayed Harris as a liberal extremist and generally got the message through that a woman would not be up to the job of president.

When Geraldine Ferraro ran as the first female vice presidential candidate nominated by a major party in 1984, there were a lot of questions about whether she would be tough enough on the world stage. Now, there are still questions about whether a woman would be tough enough to lead.

How does this election compare with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign against Trump?

In 2016, Hillary Clinton highlighted the historic nature of a woman running for president of the U.S. – and, of course, she received nearly 3 million votes more than he did, though she still lost the election. Harris was reluctant to mention the historic nature of her candidacy. She did not mention this when she gave her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2024. She recently explained this by saying, “Well, I’m clearly a woman. The point that most people really care about is can you do the job and do you have a plan to actually focus on them.”

Another important factor is Trump’s political trajectory. In 2016, Trump was still seen as an outlier and an extremist. Many political scientists – including myself – did not think he would receive the nomination, let alone win the general election that year. We see now that Trump is the new normal of the Republican Party. More moderate Republicans, such as Liz Cheney, are also not in power anymore. The party has become more extreme.

Is the country moving backward on gender equality, or is it stuck in neutral?

A few months ago, I would have said that the country is moving forward, but I feel like it’s moving backward now. That Trump’s sexist and racist messages resonated with a substantial number of people – or at least did not bother some enough – is a concern. Trump also said extreme things about women in 2016, including calling Hillary Clinton “a nasty woman.” This time around, these attacks seemed more normalized, saying that Harris was in a powerful political position only because she traded sexual favors, for example.

Women have led other countries. What makes the U.S. different?

The U.S. is a nuclear power and a major military and economic force. These realms are typically stereotyped by some as masculine. The president stands atop the U.S. political system and is directly elected. Women leaders often ascend through appointment as prime ministers in parliamentary systems. One of the vulnerabilities of prime ministers is that their terms in office are less secure. The traits deemed fitting for these roles – seeking compromise, for example – may prove less of a challenge to women than they would if they were seeking to be president of a powerful country like the U.S. on the world stage.

Only two women presidents in power in presidential systems were directly elected, and they are in Honduras and Mexico. The former is a former first lady, and the latter has strong ties to her predecessor. While women have been presidents of countries, several, such as the current presidents of Ethiopia, India and Greece, are essentially symbolic. Those positions are very different from the U.S. presidency, which has a more dominant role.

It is also pretty uncommon for a woman to be elected president in a presidential system without being a member of a powerful political family or without being supported by a male predecessor. When you look at Laura Chinchilla, the former president of Costa Rica, or former president of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, what connected a lot of these female politicians is that they were very much aided by male predecessors.

Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, the former president of Argentina, had a wealth of political experience before she came to office in 2007, but she served immediately after her husband, Néstor Kirchner, was president.

There is a complexity to these cases, and a lot of these women brought in their own political credentials and experience. But there is still a tendency to have the additional demand that women in politics have these connections.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

The Truths We Hold: An American Journey – Kamala Harris

BY TIASUNEP AIER

Kamala Harris, now the Vice President of the United States, reflects on her life and career in The Truths We Hold. First published on January 8, 2019, this memoir chronicles her journey from the daughter of immigrants to a top lawmaker. It focuses on her values of justice, equality, and integrity, presenting Harris’s political vision while showcasing key moments from her career as a prosecutor and U.S. Senator.

The book covers Harris’s childhood in Oakland, California, her time as District Attorney of San Francisco, Attorney General of California, and her role as a U.S. Senator. Harris reflects on her work in criminal justice reform, immigration, and civil rights, weaving personal stories with her policy positions. The overarching themes of justice and fairness serve as the foundation for her political philosophy.

One of the book’s strengths lies in Harris’s ability to blend personal anecdotes with policy discussions, making her political ideas more accessible. Her dedication to civil rights and criminal justice reform is a major focus, and her stories about family and mentorship humanize her professional achievements.

From a conservative point of view, however, the memoir lacks a balanced discussion of contentious issues like law enforcement and immigration. While Harris champions reform, she glosses over concerns about her support for policies viewed as too progressive, such as her stance on healthcare (Medicare for All) and criminal justice reforms that some argue could undermine law and order. There is little engagement with conservative viewpoints on these matters, making the book feel one-sided.

Moreover, while Harris emphasizes her record as a “progressive prosecutor,” critics might argue that her policies, such as opposing the death penalty in certain cases or lenient approaches to sentencing, could be seen as soft on crime—something conservatives might see as a potential threat to public safety. Additionally, her tone is sometimes more campaign-oriented than reflective, with policy achievements being presented without deep self-criticism.

I admired Harris’s driven passion for justice and her belief in the American system’s potential to bring changes. However, as someone who leans more towards conservative values and as someone who values strong law enforcement and economic freedom, I found her progressive stance on criminal justice and healthcare hard to reconcile with concerns about public safety and fiscal responsibility. At times, I felt as though the book was more about promoting a political platform than engaging in genuine self-reflection.

The Truths We Hold offers a well-constructed narrative of Kamala Harris’s career and values, but readers looking for a nuanced debate on controversial issues may find the book lacking. While her story is inspiring, it leans heavily toward progressive ideals and leaves out substantial engagement with opposing perspectives. Nevertheless, for those interested in her career and political rise, it’s an insightful look into the motivations of one of America’s most prominent political figures.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Is America Ready For A Woman President? Voters’ Attitudes To Women Politicians Are Radically Different From A Decade Ago

Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, left, campaigns with former GOP congresswoman and supporter Liz Cheney in Malvern, Pa., on Oct. 21, 2024. Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

AUTHORS:

ANGELA L. BOS

DEAN AND PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE, 

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

DAPHNE JOANNA VAN DER PAS

ASSOCIATE PROF. OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

UN IVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

LOES ALDERING

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN

COMPARATIVE POLITICS

VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT AMSTERDAM

If U.S. voters elect Kamala Harris – a Black, Asian American woman – president, it would be historic on multiple levels. This is now a real possibility due to voters’ positively evolving stereotypes of women politicians.

Stereotypes have long hindered female candidates, casting them as emotional, weak and sensitive. But now our political science research shows that voters in the U.S. increasingly see women leaders as synonymous with political leadership – and as more effective than men politicians.

This transformation reflects a broader change in what voters expect in political leaders. They are now more likely to see a woman candidate as a better “fit” for public office. This might help pave the way for Harris to break through the highest glass ceiling in U.S. politics.

The classic double bind

Gender stereotypes are the assumptions and expectations people have about men and women. They traditionally present an obstacle for women leaders, including in politics.

Among the many barriers to a woman becoming president in the U.S. are voters’ gender stereotypes. Men are generally assumed to have masculine traits such as being ambitious and competitive, while women are assumed to possess feminine traits such as being warm and compassionate. In applying gender stereotypes to politicians, voters end up with very different expectations for men and women candidates.

This presents a classic double bind for women leaders. If they behave like leaders and act dominantly and assertively, they violate expectations of femininity. But if they behave in a stereotypical way, they are not seen as strong leaders.

The double bind extends to politics. It was long the case that stereotypes of men politicians, but not women politicians, aligned with the leadership qualities that voters desire in political leaders. These traits include competence, strong leadership, empathy and integrity. A 2011 study showed that stereotypes of women politicians lacked clarity, meaning people had no clear expectations. Voters also did not see women politicians in alignment with those same four leadership qualities that voters seek.

But by 2021, prominent women political leaders such as Hillary Clinton, Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi had reshaped the landscape for women seeking office by shaping and solidifying public expectations.

More women politicians in the spotlight

More women have assumed political leadership roles in the U.S. over the past decade than in previous decades. The number of women in Congress increased from 90 to 145 between the 111th Congress, which met from 2009 to 2011, to the 117th Congress, which met from 2021 to 2023.

In addition, high-profile women politicians such as Democrats Pelosi and Clinton, as well as Liz Cheney, a Republican, have received considerable attention from both the media and the electorate. Gender stereotypes about women politicians evolved from being ambiguous to becoming both well defined and positive as voters grew more familiar with them. This has created a political landscape for Harris today that is notably different from the early 2010s.

We are political scientists whose research examines how gender stereotypes affect women’s political underrepresentation. In 2021, we conducted a study of how voters’ gender stereotypes of politicians had evolved over the previous decade. These are the three main lessons:

1. Stereotypes of women politicians are increasingly positive

A decade ago, people did not agree on the traits that defined women politicians. While some people described them as tough, others thought they were weak. Similarly, some reported them as rational, while others saw them as unable to separate feelings from ideas. There were no traits that large groups of people agreed upon to describe women politicians.

But our study shows that voters now hold clear and positive stereotypes of them.

When asked about the traits they associate with women politicians, respondents listed positive traits such as intelligent, rational, analytical, ambitious and moral. At the same time, women politicians are least associated with negative traits such as being weak and spineless.

2. Stereotypes of men politicians have shifted to increased negativity and distrust

Male politicians were previously seen as confident, well educated, charismatic and driven. But there’s bad news for men in politics: This perception has shifted. Our study revealed that stereotypes of male politicians became much more negative over the decade we studied.

Today, male politicians are more commonly viewed as power-hungry, selfish, manipulative and self-interested. They are least associated with traits such as being sympathetic or caring about “people like me.” This indicates that voters have become more negative and distrustful toward male politicians.

3. Women politicians have gained ground on leadership perceptions, surpassing men politicians

In the past, stereotypes of women politicians were incompatible with leadership stereotypes. But our study shows that this mismatch has subsided. In fact, between 2011 and 2021, scores for women politicians increased on all four leadership traits valued by voters: competence, leadership, empathy and integrity.

Men politicians, in contrast, have lost ground on all four leadership traits. Women politicians now surpass men politicians in three out of the four leadership traits: competence, empathy and integrity. Expectations of men politicians concerning the fourth trait, strong leadership, are now equal to those of female politicians.

Kamala Harris may benefit

Gender stereotypes have long hindered women seeking political office, but more women in prominent leadership positions have fostered positive stereotype change.

Granted, highly visible women leaders such as Pelosi and Clinton excite both admiration and intense dislike. But seeing them and many other examples in their wake has familiarized voters with women holding power in politics. Voters are thus now more likely to view women candidates like Harris as fitting into leadership roles such as the presidency.

With growing distrust in politics, and of male politicians specifically, women political leaders – who are viewed as agents of change – may have an opportunity to restore trust in politics.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Kamala Harris Illustrates How Complex Identity Is − And The Pressure Many Multiracial People Feel To Put Themselves In One ‘Box’

BY WILSON K. OKELLO

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HIGHER 

EDUCATION AND DIRECTO OF THE 

BLACK STUDY IN EDUCATION LAB,

PENN STATE

People sometimes feel pressured to choose one identity over another. Kamala Harris, who is multiracial – her mother is from India and her father is a Black immigrant from Jamaica – illustrates the complexity of defining identity.

Harris is often asked questions about her Black identity. She has responded by saying how it relates to her sense of self. “I’m really clear about who I am, and if anybody else is not, they need to go through their own therapy.”

At the National Association of Black Journalists conference, in July 2024, former president and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump questioned her Black identity by saying, “Is she Indian or is she Black?”

The question reflected a narrow, either/or approach. As a scholar who draws from the ideas of Black thinkers to explore how society works, I know that identity is not the result of a single decision, but rather the confluence of several factors, such as someone’s environment and socialization.

‘The Truths We Hold’

Harris’ parents, Donald Harris and Shyamala Gopalan, met at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s. They connected through the radical politics of the Black intellectual tradition, finding both community and shared values. As part of a study group and, later, the Afro-American Association, they developed a language to confront civil rights struggles and systemic oppression.

Harris often refers to herself as both African American and Asian American. During the Democratic National Convention, she paid tribute to her multiracial background and upbringing.

But in her autobiography, “The Truths We Hold,” Harris explains how her mother was cognizant that some people would see her and her younger sister, Maya, as Black, and was “determined to make sure we would grow into confident, proud Black women.”

Harris chose to attend Howard University, a historically Black University, and joined a Black sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Inc. In her autobiography, she highlighted how the values of hard work and social justice were instilled in her by her parents.

Identities are fluid and expanding

Individuals can hold multiple dimensions of identity based on their race, sexual orientation, culture and social class, among others. It is impossible to separate one from another. For example, someone can be Black, a lesbian and a woman at the same time.

Instead, identities inform one another; no one is simply Black, or a woman, or a lesbian, but these social identities compound, forming a unique experience. Furthermore, identity is fluid, and expanding. Your beliefs and values can shift, and so too can the ways in which people define themselves.

In these ways, identity is the work of context and choice. Defining your identity is about deciding not just who you want to be but how you choose to live and show up in the world. It is a complex process of making choices and navigating challenges along the way. For example, somebody navigating the intersection of race and gender might choose to embrace both identities fully, despite external pressures to conform to societal expectations.

Harris’ embrace of her multiracial identity, thus, is the result of things she learned from her parents and the various contexts and communities she inhabited.

Claims to an identity

Historically, there has been a disregard for complex identities that don’t fit into clear categories, driven by fears about preserving white racial purity and protecting associated privileges. So, when Trump questioned Kamala Harris’ racial identity, it was a reminder of the long-standing notion of pressuring someone to choose one identity over another.

An example of this is the “one-drop rule” in the United States, where even a small amount of nonwhite ancestry classified a person as nonwhite, reinforcing strict racial boundaries. Dating back to a 1662 Virginia law, the one-drop rule ensured that a single drop of Black blood assigned minority status to mixed-race individuals.

The idea that identity can be simplified to just one thing, such as race, is based on the wrong assumption that these identities never change. It’s worth repeating that Harris is of South Asian and Black descent, and it is her choice to define her racial identity. I believe that any effort to question her on the topic is disingenuous and not grounded in a willingness to engage with the complexity of her identity or anyone else’s either.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Health Care Under Harris Versus Trump: A Public Health Historian Sizes Up Their Records

BY ZACHARY W. SCHULZ

LECTURER OF HISTORY

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

Health care is a defining issue in the 2024 election – Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican contender Donald Trump have starkly different records on the issue. Rather than focusing on what they promise to do, let’s examine what their past actions reveal about their approaches to Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, public health infrastructure, drug policy and child abuse and domestic violence prevention.

As a specialist in public health history and policy, I have carefully examined both candidates’ records on American health care. With years of experience in the health care field and being a cystic fibrosis patient myself, I have developed a deep understanding of our health care system and the political dynamics that shape it.

For me, as for many other Americans, health care is more than just a political issue; it is a deeply personal one.

Medicare

During Harris’ time in the Senate, she co-sponsored the Medicare for All Act, which aimed to expand Medicare to all Americans, effectively eliminating private insurance.

At the presidential debate on Sept. 10, 2024, Harris clarified her former support of “Medicare for All” by emphasizing her prior legislative efforts to preserve and expand protections for patients’ rights and access to affordable health care.

Harris’s legislative efforts, primarily around the 2017-2020 period, reflect a commitment to broadening access to Medicare and reducing costs for seniors. During that time, Harris advocated for the Medicare program to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Later, as vice president, Harris cast a tie-breaking vote on the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, allowing the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare with pharmaceutical companies.

In contrast, during Trump’s presidency, he made several attempts, some of which were successful, to cut funding for Medicare. The 2020 budget proposed by his administration included cuts to Medicare totaling more than US$800 billion over 10 years, primarily by reducing payments to providers and slowing the growth of the program.

The proposed cuts did not take effect because they required Congressional approval, which was not granted. The plan faced significant opposition due to concerns about potential negative impacts on beneficiaries.

Affordable Care Act

Harris has been a staunch defender of the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or “Obamacare.” As a senator, Harris consistently voted against any efforts to repeal the ACA. She advocated for expanding its provisions, including supporting legislation that aimed to strengthen protections for people with preexisting conditions and increase funding for Medicaid expansion.

Harris’ record shows a clear commitment to ensuring broader health coverage under the ACA. And, in the recent debate, Harris noted this record and reasserted her commitment to the act.

During his presidency, Trump led multiple efforts to repeal the ACA, including the 2017 American Health Care Act, which would have significantly reduced the scope of Medicaid expansion and removed individual mandates.

Although these efforts ultimately failed in the Senate, Trump succeeded in weakening the ACA by eliminating the individual mandate penalty through the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In the debate against Harris, Trump reiterated his position that the Affordable Care Act “was lousy health care,” though he did not ultimately offer a replacement plan, stating only that he has “concepts of a plan.”

Public health infrastructure

Harris’ tenure in the Senate, from January 2017 to January 2021, shows a consistent pattern of supporting public health infrastructure. She co-sponsored several bills aimed at increasing funding for community health centers and expanding access to preventive care.

Harris also advocated for more federal funding to address public health emergencies, such as the opioid epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic.

During Trump’s presidency, however, he made significant cuts to public health programs. The Trump administration proposed budget cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other public health agencies, arguing that they were necessary for fiscal responsibility. These proposals drew criticism for potentially undermining the nation’s ability to respond to public health emergencies, a concern that was underscored by the CDC’s struggles during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump frequently has responded to these criticisms by asserting he “cut bureaucratic red tape” rather than essential services.

Drug pricing policy

Harris has also supported legislation to lower drug prices and increase transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. She co-sponsored the Drug Price Relief Act, which aimed to allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare directly. She also supported efforts to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Her record reflects a focus on reducing costs for consumers and increasing access to affordable medications.

Trump’s record on drug policy is mixed. While Trump took credit for some decreases in prescription drug prices during his presidency, his administration’s most significant regulatory changes favored pharmaceutical companies. The administration’s attempts to implement a rule allowing the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada faced significant hurdles and did not lead to immediate changes.

Trump also ended a rule that would have required pharmaceutical companies to disclose drug prices in television ads, citing concerns over its legality.

Child abuse and domestic violence

Harris has a strong record of advocating for the prevention of child abuse and domestic violence. During her time as California’s attorney general and as a senator, Harris pushed for legislation that increased funding for domestic violence prevention programs and expanded legal protections for survivors. She has consistently supported measures to enhance child welfare services and improve coordination among agencies to protect children.

Trump’s record on these issues is less defined, but his administration did sign into law the Family First Prevention Services Act, which aimed to keep more children safely at home and out of foster care by providing new resources to families. However, critics argue that the Trump administration’s broader cuts to social services and health programs could indirectly undermine efforts to combat child abuse and domestic violence. In addition, some experts suggest that Trump’s family separation policies on the southern border contributed to an increase in child trauma during his administration.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Women Are Still Underrepresented In Local Government, Despite A Woman Running For President

BY JUSTIN DE BENEDICTUS-KESSNER

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY

HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL

Kamala Harris is at the top of a major party ticket running for president. Some people have celebrated her candidacy, hoping that it will excite voters enough to elect the first woman president.

But the glass ceiling that stymied Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in 2016 is still sturdy at other levels of political office across the country.

My research with Diana Da In Lee, Yamil Velez and Chris Warshaw shows that in cities and counties, women remain underrepresented among local officeholders in nearly every political office.

Like many other characteristics of officeholders, such as occupation or race, the gender of elected officials influences the way they make policy. Research has shown that women, and especially working-class women, elected to state and federal government offices in countries around the world make different spending decisions. Having more women in elected offices might matter especially at the local level, where the details of many of these federal or state spending decisions actually play out.

Congress is infamous for having few women in office. But until now, researchers and the public knew very little about how women and different racial groups were represented outside the federal government.

We gathered data from city, county and school district elections covering the past three decades in any city with a population of at least 50,000 people and any county with a population of at least 75,000 in 2020. Using this data, we calculated the share of winning candidates who were women or men.

Our published research shows that women make up a smaller share of elected officials in county governments and city governments than they represent in the population.

The gap between women’s share of the population in counties and women’s share of officeholders in counties is especially large. While women make up just over half of the population in counties, they make up only a little over a quarter of legislators who serve on county councils or county commissions. Women serving as county executives, sheriffs and prosecutors are even rarer. The office of sheriff is especially dominated by men, with women serving in less than 5% of these positions.

City government offices look a little better for women’s representation. Women are not well represented in the mayor’s office – only 24% of mayors are women – and just over a third of elected city councilors are women. The relatively smaller gender gap of elected officials in city government is an improvement over counties, but it is far from gender parity.

School boards are the one exception. On the school boards we studied, women are slightly overrepresented in office relative to men. This may be a result of school boards being what political scientists like us call “stereotype congruent” offices for women, whom voters see as more competent in areas such as education and health.

People learn early in life, through a process researchers call “gendered political socialization,” to question women’s place in politics. For this reason, women are less likely to express an interest in politics or run for office, and they first show this lack of political ambition early in their childhood. Other research shows that in adulthood, gendered expectations of women to have successful careers alongside motherhood can further limit their interest in running for office. Our research shows the consequences of these ambition gaps between men and women in politics: Women remain underrepresented in nearly every local political office, except for school boards.

As Kamala Harris takes on Donald Trump in the presidential election this fall, many pundits and voters are celebrating the representation of women – and in particular, women of color – in politics. But no matter the outcome in November, the gender gap between city and county residents and their local elected officials will be large. As a result, the important policies that local governments make might not fully represent the wishes of the people.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Kamala Harris’ Message To Women On ‘Freedom’ Helps Explain Why Black And White Christians Are Deeply Divided Over Support For Donald Trump

BY YOUSSEF CHOUHOUD, DARA DELGADO, FLAVIO ROGERIO HICKEL JR. AND LEAH PAYNE

Just days after President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential race in July, Vice President Kamala Harris addressed the annual meeting of the Zeta Phi Beta sorority in Indianapolis, where she emphasized the importance of both religious faith and political freedom.

Harris contrasted her stance on abortion rights with that of former President Donald Trump, stating, “Across our nation, we are witnessing a full-on assault on hard-fought, hard-won freedoms and rights,” Harris said. “And in the face of these attacks, we must continue to stand together in defense of freedom.”

By centering “freedom” in her campaign, Harris invoked a key element of Black identity and spirituality rooted in the historic struggle for liberation by formerly enslaved people. This legacy partly drives an attitudinal divide between Black and white Christians, especially on issues such as abortion and support for Trump.

As political science and religion scholars, we view Harris’ remarks as a subtle reminder to voters that Black religious life in the U.S. has long involved an appeal to people of all faiths to use their beliefs to advance social justice.

Her message stands in sharp contrast to Trump’s conservative allies, who have pushed for restrictions on personal freedoms concerning abortion.

The racial divide

To better understand the relationship between race, religion and support for Trump, we fielded an online, national survey in June 2024 supported by the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonprofit organization that conducts public opinion polls on a variety of topics.

In order to compare the views of white and Black Christians, our sample of nearly 1,500 adults included over 700 participants from each racial group. We asked half the sample to indicate their level of agreement with five statements commonly used to measure Christian nationalist beliefs.

Those items include support for religious-based laws and the belief that the U.S. was conceived as a Christian nation.

We then categorized participants according to whether they agreed with most of the statements (“adherents” and “sympathizers”) or disagreed with most of them (“skeptics” and “rejectors”). Over one-third of both Black and white Christians agreed with most Christian nationalist ideas.

We found that Black Christian nationalists are far less likely to support Trump, however, compared with their white counterparts. Additionally, they do not back far-right policies, like those outlined in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s plan to implement a conservative agenda across the federal government.

These two groups also differ greatly in their evaluation of Trump. Only 17% of Black Christian nationalists expressed a favorable view toward the former president, compared with 49% of white Christian nationalists.

The chosen one?

These racial differences are even more pronounced when we examined the attitudes of charismatics – a group of devout Christians who in the late 20th century began emphasizing Pentecostal practices such as divine healing and speaking in tongues, a language of indecipherable sounds believed to be a direct communication with God.

All participants in our survey – 760 white Americans and 734 Black Americans – were asked whether they had personally experienced or witnessed practices of charismatic Christianity. Those include receiving what they believed to be a direct revelation from God.

While only 23% of white Americans in the study were categorized as charismatic, that figure doubled to 51% of Black Americans.

Although prominent white Christian nationalists frequently characterize Trump as “the chosen one,” we found that only 15% of Black charismatics express favorable views of him compared with 52% of white charismatics.

The ongoing fight for freedom

The Black radical tradition, helps explain how Black charismatics can share so much with their white counterparts – even an embrace of Christian nationalism – but diverge when it comes to Trump and abortion.

In its contemporary form, the Black radical tradition is an ideological framework that asks its adherents to actively resist policies that threaten racial equality and bodily autonomy. Abortion rights fit squarely within this political tradition.

According to a 2014 Religious Landscape Survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the majority of Black Christians say that abortion should be legal. Those Christians include such denominations as Baptists, Presbyterians and Pentecostals who are not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.

Over the years, that majority support for abortion among Black Christians has remained stable and mirrors similar support among Black voters overall. In a 2024 Pew Research Center poll, for instance, 73% of Black voters said abortion should be legal.

During her speech before members of the Zeta Phi Beta sorority, Harris said that she understood the difficulty in balancing one’s faith with political resistance. But as she explained:

We, who believe in reproductive freedom, will fight for a woman’s right to choose, because one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree that the government should not be telling her what to do!

After Harris accepted Biden’s endorsement, her longtime pastor, Rev. Amos Brown, prayed that Harris would advance her campaign “in the spirit of our ancestors.”

That ancestral spirit includes the Black radical tradition of political resistance – and the ongoing fight for freedom.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Democratic Men Are Stepping Up For A Woman President By Stepping Back, At Last

Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris joins President Joe Biden on the stage at the Democratic National Convention after his speech in which he said he would be the Harris and Walz campaign’s ‘best volunteer.’ Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

BY KARRIN VASBY ANDERSON

PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATION STUDIES,

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

Women have been running for president of the United States since 1872, and for almost that long people have been asking what women need to do in order to break what Hillary Clinton has called the “highest, hardest glass ceiling” left in American culture.

Almost no one has asked what men need to do in order to remedy the problem that the job has been off-limits to more than 50% of the talent pool since … forever.

At the 2024 Democratic National Convention, that changed. Democratic men made choices that were entirely new, or exceedingly rare, in support of a woman presidential candidate and in service to the nation. It was unprecedented.

As a communication scholar who studies gender and political leadership, I’ve argued that the biggest impediment to electing a woman as president is not a dearth of qualified woman candidates but a collective inability to recognize them as such. The fault is not in the candidates but in American culture.

As it turns out, men in politics were also to blame.

When faced with competitive women as presidential candidates, many men historically have leveraged their power and privilege in ways that undercut women’s candidacies. But the Democratic convention was different.

For the first time in history, men in a major political party offered unified support for a woman candidate. They refrained from strategically deploying the stereotype that strong women are not likable, as Barack Obama did with Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

They accepted the party’s overwhelming support for a woman candidate, instead of insisting on being entitled to superdelegates, as Bernie Sanders did in 2016.

And they put their career on hold to support their spouse’s candidacy instead of undercutting it by offering support to primary campaign challengers, as Bob Dole did when Elizabeth Dole sought the Republican Party’s nomination in 2000.

‘Relinquishing male power’

Rhetorical choices reveal the underlying motivations of individuals and groups. The messaging of Democratic men at the 2024 convention signaled that their party was finally ready to do something that no major party has ever done. They were not only nominating a woman candidate but relinquishing male power and privilege.

Biden surprised everyone when he pulled out of the race in response to pressure from flagging poll results, skeptical donors and party leaders, and nervous down-ballot candidates. Any resentment he may have felt, however, did not turn into pique or pettiness at the convention.

When the crowd chanted, “Thank you, Joe,” he instructed, “Thank you, Kamala, too,” and promised to be “the best volunteer the Harris and Walz camp have ever seen.” He didn’t just give up his candidacy. He ceded his authority – to the people and the party, but also to Harris, specifically.

Although Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg angled to be Harris’ running mate and may still harbor his own presidential aspirations, he did not use his convention speaking slot to audition for the 2028 campaign. Instead, he performed the role that historically has been reserved for women at political conventions: pitching the party’s message via the perspective of a parent whose primary concern is “kitchen table” politics, issues that affect children and families most directly.

The convention speech given by the presidential nominee’s spouse has historically been an opportunity for prospective first ladies to portray their husbands as patriarchs of an ideal American family. In his speech, second gentleman Doug Emhoff painted a picture of a “complicated” and “blended family” with no patriarch but two active partners, equally capable of professional success and deep commitment to family.

When Harris selected Tim Walz as her running mate, she defied many pundits and the oddsmakers who deemed Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro the best strategic choice. Walz’s convention performance was described by one news outlet as the message of a “midwest ‘man’s man’” and the “antidote to toxic Maga masculinity.” Even Ms. magazine touted it as a “Masculinity-Themed Populist Pep Talk.”

But Walz did something Americans are not used to seeing “man’s men” do. He made it clear that he could work not just with, but for, a woman. And that everyone should.

After informing the crowd that the election was in the metaphorical “fourth quarter,” the team was “down a field goal” and the offense was “driving down the field,” Coach Walz made it clear that, as in his high school coaching days, he was the assistant coach. Their leader was Kamala Harris, and “Kamala Harris is tough. Kamala Harris is experienced. And Kamala Harris is ready.”

Contented second fiddles

To be clear, Harris’ early success as a presidential candidate should be attributed, first and foremost, to her skillful and dexterous response to a series of unprecedented events and to the savvy support of the Black women who have long sustained the Democratic Party.

But the men of the convention made a collective choice to embrace “their second-fiddle roles,” as an Axios reporter described it, and treat Harris like a commander in chief. That should be unremarkable. Women have been doing it for presidential candidates since … forever. But to see so many white men stepping back so enthusiastically for a woman of color was almost unbelievable.

Stepping back is not the same thing as stepping away. That’s important, because the broader message of the convention was about how to create an inclusive, democratic community. When you need to make a circle wider, and let more people in, you step back. That doesn’t leave you out of the circle. It makes your circle bigger.

The convention offered an expansive circle that includes gay dads raising strong-willed toddlers, blended families that attend synagogue and church, football coaches who bag pheasants and serve as faculty adviser to the high school’s gay-straight alliance club, and presidents who give up their power for the good of the country.

It also includes a presidential candidate who looks like no other president in U.S. history. That’s a big step forward for the country.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Americans Give Harris An Advantage Over Trump On Honesty And Discipline, An AP-NORC Poll Finds

This combination of photos shows Vice President Kamala Harris, left, on Aug. 7, 2024 and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump on July 31, 2024. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

BY LINLEY SANDERS  AND JONATHAN J. COOPER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris has a perceived advantage over former President Donald Trump on several leadership qualities such as honesty, a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds, although Americans are slightly more likely to trust Trump on the economy and immigration.

Nearly half of Americans say that “committed to democracy” and “disciplined” are attributes that better describe Harris. About 3 in 10 say these qualities better describe Trump.

About 4 in 10 say Harris is someone who “cares about people like you” while about 3 in 10 say that about Trump. About 4 in 10 say “honest” better describes Harris and 24% say that quality better describes Trump.

Both parties are racing to define Harris as she prepares to accept the Democratic nomination at the party’s convention next week. The poll suggests she carries some of the same baggage that weighed down President Joe Biden before he ended his reelection bid but has advantages over Trump when they’re compared to each other. And Democrats continue to be much happier about her candidacy than they were about Biden’s.

Trump has spent the campaign championing himself as a strong leader who is capable of handling tough crises facing the country and suggesting that foreign leaders wouldn’t respect Harris in the White House. But he doesn’t have an advantage with Americans on that characteristic, according to the survey. Four in 10 U.S. adults see Trump as a strong leader, and roughly the same share say that about Harris. About 4 in 10 say Trump is capable of handling a crisis, and a similar share say Harris is better positioned to do so.

Americans are about evenly divided between who they think is more capable of winning in November — Trump or Harris. In July, before Biden dropped out of the race, only about 2 in 10 Americans thought he was more capable of winning, while about twice as many thought that about Trump.

“Trump had a better chance when Joe Biden was running,” said Lisa Miller, a 42-year-old student in Elko, Nevada, and a Republican. “I think a lot of people who were insecure about Joe Biden are more secure with Kamala Harris’ age and cognitive abilities.”

Americans are more likely to trust Trump over Harris when it comes to handling the economy or immigration, but the difference is slight — 45% say Trump is better positioned to handle the economy, while 38% say that about Harris. The difference is similar in handling immigration. Independents are about twice as likely to trust Trump over Harris on economic issues, and they give him the advantage on immigration as well.

Howard Barnes, a 36-year-old artist in San Francisco, is a Republican who says he trusts Trump over Harris on the border.

“She doesn’t really seem to be proactive about it or even interested in it,” Barnes said.

Harris has more of an advantage over Trump when it comes to handling issues related to race and racial inequality, abortion policy, and health care. Roughly half of U.S. adults say Harris would do a better job than Trump handling each of those issues, compared with about 3 in 10 for Trump. Harris is especially strong among Democrats, independents and women on the issue of abortion policy.

Democrats and independents give her the edge on health care, as well as on issues of race and racial inequality. About two-thirds of Black adults say Harris is the candidate they trust more on that issue, as well as about half of Hispanic adults and white adults.

Harris’ strengths also accentuate two areas where Republicans give Trump relatively low marks: abortion policy and issues related to race and racial inequality. Only about 6 in 10 Republicans trust Trump over Harris on these issues.

There are possible signs of trouble for Harris in the poll, though. Only about 6 in 10 Democrats trust her over Trump to do a better job handling the war in Gaza, her lowest rating within her party on the issues asked about. About one-quarter of Democrats say they trust neither Trump nor Harris on this topic.

Democrats are more excited about the election now

About two-thirds of Democrats say “excited” describes either extremely well or very well how they would feel if Harris were to be elected.

The enthusiasm represents a sharp reversal from when Biden was the Democrats’ candidate: an AP-NORC poll from March found that only 4 in 10 Democrats said “excited” would describe their feelings extremely or very well if he won another term. About 7 in 10 Democrats say “satisfied” would describe their emotions at least very well if Harris won. That’s also a shift from March, when half of Democrats said this about Biden.

“There’s definitely joy and there’s definitely hope, and I feel like that’s something that’s been missing,” said Meaghan Dunfee, a 33-year-old public-sector worker in Hamilton, New Jersey. “I don’t think we’ve had that in a long time on the Democratic side.”

About 2 in 10 independents say they would be either excited or satisfied by Harris being elected, an increase from their response to the Biden question in March. Roughly half of independents say excitement would describe their emotions at least “somewhat” well, up from about one-quarter in March. Similar shares of independents say they would be excited or satisfied about Trump being elected.

Cooper reported from Phoenix.

The poll of 1,164 adults was conducted August 8-12, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Kamala, A Common Name In India, Is Associated With Several Deities And Is A Symbol Of Wisdom

BY ARCHANA VANHATESAN

PROFESSOR OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES

AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

Ever since Vice President Kamala Harris became a presence on the national scene, her name – a common one for women in India – has attracted a lot of attention, most specifically for its pronunciation.

The three-syllable word should be pronounced “Come-a-laa” (Kamalā), with the final long “a” signaling a feminine noun in Sanskrit. In the United States, it is often enunciated with stresses placed on the first or second syllable.

However, the pronunciation of “Kamala” is the least interesting thing about this lovely name, which is only one of many words in Sanskrit for the radiant, fragrant, large-petaled pink lotus, or Nelumbo nucifera , that is ubiquitous in the Indian subcontinent. As a scholar of South Indian religions, I’d like to explain the deep symbolism and the many meanings of the kamala, or lotus, which are shared by different faith traditions in the subcontinent.

The ‘kamala’ in Indian literature

In many Indian love poems, the wide, shapely eyes of beautiful women are compared to the lotus, while in devotional poetry it is the God’s eyes that invite the comparison.

The simile is not confined just to the eyes but can be used to praise the beauty, softness and radiance of a lover’s or the divine’s face, feet or hands. The ninth-century Tamil poet, Nammalvar, in his magnum opus, the “Tiruvaymoli,” uses the simile to describe the beauty of the god Vishnu:

You are faultless light

You are unsullied wisdom

that neither blooms nor withers.

You are everything. You rule it all.

If the king of the beautiful gods

worships you, won’t it dim

the radiance of your lotus feet?

In some cases, love, whether mystical or human, is described as a lotus that blooms in the day, responding to the warmth and brightness of the sun. At night, the lotus closes its petals, much as one might withdraw in the absence of the beloved. Equally, the lotus can be evocative of desire and intimacy, drawing a bee to drink from its nectar.

The lotus, both as whole flower or even a single curved petal, is a pervasive motif in Indian art. A famous 18th-century Indian miniature painting depicts the divine couple, Radha and Krishna, facing each other, clothed entirely in lotuses.

The lotus’s divine symbolism


Most significantly, the kamala, or lotus, is closely associated with Sri-Lakshmi: the goddess of sovereignty, auspiciousness, fecundity, wealth and good fortune, who is worshiped by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. In fact, Kamala is simply another name for Sri-Lakshmi. This goddess either sits or stands on a fully bloomed lotus and holds them in her hands as well.

In Hindu temples in Southern India, she will often be adorned in a garland of lotuses, so complete is her association with this flower. Lakshmi’s divine husband, Vishnu, is also closely connected to this flower. A lotus emerges from his navel to birth the god Brahma, who in turn births the whole universe.

Although Sri-Lakshmi’s association with the lotus is most obvious, the religious traditions of Jainism and Buddhism also integrate the bloom. Buddhist and Jain divine figures may hold the lotus in their hand, like the Buddhist goddess Tara or the male Buddhist deity Avalokiteshvara. The sixth great teacher of the Jain tradition, Padmaprabhu, is named after a lotus, with “padma” being another name for the flower. Sometimes the lotus serves as a pedestal for the divine being in the Jain, Buddhist and Hindu traditions.

In all cases, the lotus is rarely a bud and almost always a lush, open bloom. This gestures to its deep meaning as a symbol of wisdom, of one’s awakening into knowledge from the torpor of ignorance. The kamala’s symbolic meaning is rooted in the fact that the lotus blooms in swampy waters but remains untouched by the dirt around it. Similarly, enlightenment and wisdom arise and blossom from the murk of desire and attachment. But when one attains wisdom, like the lotus, one remains above and untouched by the dirt of deluding ignorance.

That is why the kamala is always pictured and described not as a bud, suggesting only potential for wisdom, but as a large, open, unfurled flower.

Kamala Harris’ name is a reminder of its significance in these religious traditions. One could argue that a lotus by another name is still a lotus, but as these traditions show, it is also so much more.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

How San Francisco’s Democratic Political Machine Led To Kamala Harris’ Presidential Campaign

Sen. George Moscone, right, roars with relief as he is congratulated by Congressman Phillip Burton on his close victory in San Francisco’s mayoral runoff, Dec. 12, 1975. AP Photo/Jim Palmer

BY LINCOLN MITCHELL

SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL 

AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS,

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

The political earthquake that has made Kamala Harris the Democratic Party’s nominee for president is a San Francisco story that began more than 60 years ago.

The cast of characters includes a chain-smoking, hard-drinking and profane political mastermind; a Polish Jewish activist who fled the Nazis and later became a member of Congress; a Black lawyer and civil rights activist from rural Texas; and the scion of a powerful political family who moved to San Francisco when she got married and made it to Congress in substantial part due to a deathbed endorsement from the refugee-turned-congresswoman.

Harris, whose first foray into electoral politics was in 2003 when she won a tough race for district attorney in San Francisco, and Nancy Pelosi, the longtime San Francisco congresswoman who was instrumental in persuading Joe Biden not to seek reelection, can both trace their political origins and their brand of liberal politics to the 1963 mayoral election in San Francisco.

The two major candidates in that race were the Republican, Harold Dobbs, and the Democrat, Jack Shelley. Shelley had served in Congress since 1949, had strong ties to organized labor and was seeking to become San Francisco’s first Democratic mayor in over half a century.

Dobbs was an affable businessman and one of the owners of a popular diner chain known as Mel’s Drive-In. In the days just before the election, there was a demonstration outside of a Mel’s Drive-In location in San Francisco because of the chain’s refusal to hire African Americans in customer-facing positions, such as waiters or waitresses. The young civil rights attorney who expertly organized that boycott and therefore helped deliver the election to Shelley was Willie Brown.

Shelley won the election, and that’s when the pieces started to fall into place that paved the way for, six decades later, Harris having the presidency within her reach.

Birth of a legacy

In an early 1964 special election, California Assemblyman Phil Burton, from San Francisco, won Shelly’s old seat in Congress. That’s where Burton’s reputation for profanity, drinking and political genius would grow for almost 20 years. Whether it was redistricting, candidate recruitment, messaging or campaign strategy, Burton was a mastermind.

In 1960, his brother John introduced Phil to a handsome, young and progressive Italian American attorney who had been an all-city basketball player interested in getting into politics. Phil Burton recognized the young man’s potential and told him to run for the California Assembly in 1960, and that although he would inevitably lose, the name recognition and reputation he would gain would position him to run for the city’s Board of Supervisors, San Francisco’s equivalent of the city council, a few years later.

The plan worked brilliantly, as George Moscone was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1963, the state Senate in 1966, where he became majority leader in 1967 and eventually mayor of San Francisco in 1975.

Burton was able to help place people like Moscone into powerful political positions because he could deliver organized labor, raise money and ensure redistricting that would draw friendly lines for his allies.

Shortly after Phil Burton got elected to Congress, Phil’s brother John won Phil’s old California Assembly seat in another special election. The Burton brothers then had enough power to put together a formidable political operation in San Francisco – one whose impact is playing out on the national stage today.

A generation of powerful Bay Area politicians, including former U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, former U.S. Rep. George Miller, Moscone and others were part of the Burton political operation and benefited from its support.

In Congress, Phil Burton fought tirelessly for progressive causes. His most famous achievement may have been helping to create the 80,000-acre Golden Gate National Recreation Area that includes parts of Marin County and San Francisco.

The machine matures

The next thing the Burton brothers did after the 1963 election was to back Willie Brown in a Democratic primary later in 1964, in a different state Assembly district, against incumbent Democratic Assemblyman Ed Gaffney.

Brown won that primary and the subsequent general election and would hold onto that seat until he was elected mayor of San Francisco in 1995. For the final 15 years he was in the Assembly, Brown was the speaker of that body, becoming what one California politics journal called “the most powerful Black politician in the country in the 1980s and ‘90s.”

Phil Burton would serve in the House of Representatives until his death in 1983, and come within one vote of becoming House Majority Leader in 1976. Upon Burton’s death, his seat in Congress was taken by his widow, Sala Burton, a Jewish woman who had fled Poland and made her way to San Francisco in the late 1930s.

Four years later, in 1987, Brown was at the height of his powers in Sacramento. He was able to send money to embattled Democratic incumbents to ensure his majority in the Assembly until the 1994 election – and stop the more extreme plans of Republican governors. John Burton, after spending a decade in the state Assembly and another decade in Congress, was out of office and addressing some personal problems. Sala Burton was dying of colon cancer.

It is a San Francisco legend that everybody in politics wanted to know who Sala Burton and her brother-in-law John wanted to run for her seat – which was still seen as Phil Burton’s seat – because whichever candidate had the support of the Burton political operation was almost sure to win.

A deathbed anointment

Sala made it clear that she wanted “Nancy.”

Many, including John Burton, assumed she meant Nancy Walker, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Sala Burton had another Nancy in mind: a political insider and longtime ally of the Burtons who had never run for office but was well known for both her political savvy and her ability to raise money.

By 1987, the youngest of Nancy Pelosi’s five children had graduated from high school, so Pelosi was ready to run for office. With the backing of the Burtons, who had allies and supporters throughout San Francisco, Pelosi won that 1987 special election, defeating Supervisor Harry Britt. Pelosi has been reelected every two years since and is expected to win another term in November 2024.

Those events, from 1963-64 through 1987, set the stage for July 2024.

Enter Kamala Harris

In the mid-1990s, when Harris was a young prosecutor in Alameda County, she was romantically involved with Willie Brown. Brown was married at the time. By then, he had a decades-old reputation for squiring women other than his wife around San Francisco and Sacramento and being the best-dressed politician in California, and possibly anywhere.

After they broke up, Brown was Harris’ political mentor, helping her get started in San Francisco politics and win her upset victory in the 2003 district attorney’s race there. From there, she became the state attorney general, a U.S. senator, the Democratic vice president and, now, the Democratic nominee for president.

The Burton brothers set out in the 1960s to move the Democratic Party in California leftward, and in doing that put a chain of events in motion that has the whole world’s attention today. Now, Kamala Harris espouses the same progressive politics that were embodied by Phil Burton and his brother John and carried forward by their anointed heirs.

Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s statement that “all politics is local” is quoted too frequently, and is less true than in the past. But it turns out that in San Francisco, once in a while, all local politics are national.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Things To Know About The Largest US-Russia Prisoner Swap In Post-Soviet History

This image released by the White House shows Evan Gershkovich, left, Alsu Kurmasheva, right, and Paul Whelan, second from right, and others aboard a plane, Thursday, Aug. 1, 2024, following their release from Russian captivity. (White House via AP)

BY ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. and Russia on Thursday completed their largest prisoner swap in post-Soviet history, a deal involving 24 people, many months of negotiations and concessions from other European countries who released Russians in their custody as part of the exchange.

Here are some things to know:

Who was freed

The 24 people — some prominent, some not — included a collection of journalists and political dissidents, suspected spies, a computer hacker and a fraudster. Even a man convicted of murder.

Russia released 16 people, including Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, a corporate security executive from Michigan. Both were facing long prison sentences after being convicted in Russia’s heavily politicized legal system of espionage charges that the U.S. government called baseless.

Also freed by Moscow was Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty journalist Alsu Kurmasheva, a dual U.S.-Russian citizen convicted in July of spreading false information about the Russian military — accusations her family and employer have rejected.

Gershkovich, Whelan and Kurmasheva all arrived late Thursday at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, where they were greeted by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Russia also released Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Kremlin critic and Pulitzer Prize-winning writer serving 25 years on charges of treason widely seen as politically motivated.

The most infamous of the eight people Russia got back is Vadim Krasikov, who was convicted in Germany in 2021 of killing a former Chechen rebel in a Berlin park two years earlier, apparently on the orders of Moscow’s security services. It also received two alleged “sleeper” agents who were jailed in Slovenia, three men charged by federal authorities in the U.S. and two men returned from Norway and Poland.

A breakthrough in US-Russia relations?

That’s unlikely.

The U.S. and Russia have reached several prior prisoner swaps during the course of Russia’s war with Ukraine, including a December 2022 trade in which Moscow freed WNBA star Brittney Griner in exchange for notorious arms trafficker Viktor Bout.

But none of those exchanges resulted in a meaningful warming of relations, particularly at a time when Russian President Vladimir Putin has refused to halt his aggression against Ukraine and as Washington continues to send significant military support to Kyiv.

Prisoner exchanges have been a rare source of compromise and an alignment of mutually agreeable interests rather than a reflection of anything broader. Even so, the fact that the countries were able to get the deal done at a time of open hostility is notable.

The Americans left behind

Though Thursday’s deal involves the most well-known of the Americans held in Russia, including two who have been formally designated as wrongfully detained, there are still several others who remain.

That group includes Travis Leake, a musician convicted on drug charges and sentenced to prison; Gordon Black, an American soldier convicted of stealing and making threats of murder; Marc Fogel, a teacher also sentenced on drug charges; and Ksenia Khavana, who was arrested in Yekaterinburg in February on treason charges, accused of collecting money for Ukraine’s military.

Khavana had returned to Russia to visit family. The owner of the spa in California where Khavana had been working previously told The Associated Press that Khavana actually was collecting funds for humanitarian aid.

In a statement after the deal was announced, Fogel’s family said it was “inconceivable” that he had not been included and urged the Biden administration to prioritize his release.

A senior administration official, who briefed reporters before the swap on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House, said the administration would be redoubling its efforts to get remaining Americans home.

The imbalance in participants

In prisoner exchanges over the past few years, the U.S. government has released criminals convicted of significant crimes, including drug and weapons traffickers and a Taliban drug lord.

The latest deal was no exception, with the U.S. and Western allies agreeing to hand back to Russia criminals regarded as properly charged and convicted.

The most notable example of that, by far, was Vadim Krasikov, who was convicted in the Aug. 23, 2019, killing of Zelimkhan “Tornike” Khangoshvili, a 40-year-old Georgian citizen who had fought Russian troops in Chechnya and later claimed asylum in Germany.

At Krasikov’s sentencing to life in prison in 2021, German judges said he had acted on the orders of Russian authorities, who gave him a false identity, passport and the resources to carry out the killing.

Throughout the course of negotiations, Russia remained adamant about getting Krasikov back, making it clear that he topped the wish list. Putin hinted earlier this year that he was interested in such a trade to free a “patriot” held in Germany.

By contrast, the Americans and Europeans released by Russia include people who were either designated by the U.S. as wrongfully detained — like Gershkovich and Whelan — or generally regarded as held on baseless charges.

“Deals like this one come with tough calls,” Biden said but added: “There’s nothing that matters more to me than protecting Americans at home and abroad.”

It could have included Navalny

Central to the deal was a man who never got to be part of it: Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

At the time of his death in February, officials were discussing a possible exchange involving him and Krasikov as a way to satisfy Russia’s relentless demand for Krasikov and unlock the imprisoned Americans.

Administration officials described the sudden and unexplained death of Navalny as a setback to that effort, but drew up a new plan to present to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

In the end, several associates of Navalny were released.

The politics of it all

Biden had foreshadowed his commitment to a deal last week, when he said in an Oval Office address announcing his plan to abandon his reelection bid: “We’re also working around the clock to bring home Americans being unjustly detained all around the world.”

On Thursday, he basked in the success of a diplomatic feat executed in the final months of his administration as he welcomed the families of the returning Americans to the White House. In an apparent jab at the “America First” mantra of Donald Trump, the former president and current Republican nominee, Biden said: “Today is a powerful example of why it’s vital to have friends in this world.”

Trump, who during his presidency had also taken an interest in hostages and wrongfully detained Americans, claimed during the June debate with Biden that he would get Gershkovich out as soon as he won the election.

On Thursday, he bashed the deal, suggesting incorrectly on his Truth Social platform that the U.S. had given Russia cash for the deal.

“Are we releasing murderers, killers, or thugs? Just curious because we never make good deals, at anything, but especially hostage swaps,” Trump wrote.