Yes, Kamala Harris Slept with a Powerful Man for Political Advancement

But her female privilege means we’re not supposed to talk about it

Note: this is a revised version of an earlier Substack essay.

A recent Time article, “Fact-Checking False Claims about Kamala Harris” [never trust a “fact-checker”] tries to throw cold water on the allegation that Harris got her start by having an affair with a married man, California politician Willie Brown.

Oh well, declares the Time article in response, Willie Brown wasn’t really married because he and his wife were estranged at the time. And far from being a secret affair, Brown has freely admitted that he “dated” Harris. What kind of sexist prude, the article implies, has a problem with a woman’s freely-chosen sexual conduct, and what does it have to do with her fitness for public office?

The alleged fact-checker leaves out salient context to suggest that anyone put off by Harris’s actions in her climb up the slippery pole is unfairly seeking to discredit her credentials.

The fact is that in 1994, when Harris was 29 years old and working as a deputy district attorney in Oakland, California, she was sexually involved with Brown, a known womanizer and powerful player in California politics. He was 60 years old at the time, Democratic House Speaker for the California State Assembly and on his way to becoming the mayor of San Francisco. Harris was a beautiful young lawyer with advancement on her mind.

It’s near-impossible to believe that the affair between the two was a case of love at first sight, or even of mutual reckless passion. But so far it is, of course, none of my business or anyone else’s.

Where it gets interesting is in its results. During the roughly two years that Harris and Brown were sexually involved, Brown appointed Harris to two high profile and well-paid positions: one on the California Medical Assistance Commission, and the other on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. These were lavishly remunerated political appointments.

With only four years of professional experience under her belt, Harris would have been far less qualified than many other possible appointees, and very likely the least qualified of potential candidates.

When she began her campaign to be elected San Francisco district attorney, Brown supported her in his position as mayor of the city, tapping in to his extensive network.

Given these facts not mentioned by the Time article, it seems undeniable that Harris pursued a sexual relationship with Brown to receive favors, and was richly rewarded, both financially and politically, for doing so.  

Such is a common mode of operation for ambitious young women looking to jump the queue to career gain and influence. It deserves to be seen as the feminine side of sexual harassment and as an equally toxic, if more insidious, form of sexual discrimination.

It is almost inconceivable that Harris would have been appointed to the two board positions on her own merits. She moved ahead of better qualified and more worthy candidates, male and female, because she was involved with Brown. It’s also likely that her successful bid to become district attorney of San Francisco was in large part due to Brown’s influence in the city.

Unlike in instances of sexual harassment, there is not usually a complainant in cases of sexual exploitation. It is possible that both Harris and Brown look back on their affair with satisfaction.

But that doesn’t mean that their conduct was victimless. It was an abuse of power, and it should concern those who value merit and common fairness. Less attractive and more scrupulous people, those with integrity who might have earned the positions Harris bagged, never had a chance to compete for them on anything like a level playing field.

Furthermore, the incidents speak to Harris’s ruthlessness, lack of genuine ability, and moral corruptibility. Unlike in the case of Trump, whose “grab them by the pussy” comment never indicated sexual assault of women (quite the opposite—he was making the point that an extraordinary number of women are willingly bedazzled by powerful men), Harris spent years choosing to trade her body for political profit.

If men are to be harshly condemned for exploiting their power for sexual access—supposedly because it hurts all women and warps public culture—then why are women held guiltless when they exploit their sexual power for political and other access? Do their actions not also corrupt public culture, breeding favoritism, resentment, mistrust, apathy, and rancor?

Not surprisingly, the mainstream press and politically correct people are uninterested in what should rightly be understood as a form of female sex privilege, for which Harris deserves to answer.

If the subject were to be raised, she would almost certainly portray herself, and be portrayed, as a victim, allegedly attacked for being a normal sexual woman. We would hear a good deal about the virgin-whore dichotomy and about “slut shaming,” supposed inventions of the patriarchy to keep women subordinate.

The fact is, however, that Kamala Harris abused power by accepting positions she hadn’t earned and that she almost certainly knew she hadn’t earned, on the basis of her female sex privilege.

Until women and men hold women accountable for such unethical behavior, it will continue to corrupt public life.