In her 2019 memoir, “The Truths We Hold,” Kamala Harris wrote: “Words are incredibly powerful, and people in power, whose words can carry furthest and fastest, have an obligation, a duty, to speak them with precision and wisdom.”

She’s right. Harris has less than four months to win Americans’ trust and get them used to a wholly unfamiliar idea: a Black woman occupying the country’s highest political position. And the strongest tool in her arsenal is her words.

Coverage of Harris throughout her vice presidency has repeatedly ridiculed her speech. Rival presidential candidate Donald Trump often mocks her speaking style. Right-wing pundits refer to her remarks as “word salad.” In the instance of the viral “coconut tree” line, her detractors called her language “bizarre” and “mystifying,” even as the quote inspired a flurry of memes.

In the face of all this, some may say that Harris needs to work on her words — to use them to show herself as a powerful and capable leader, not just a punch line.

They would be wrong.

American society closely scrutinizes leaders, particularly women of color, and places each somewhere on a continuum between “dominance” and “warmth.” Some leaders choose to emphasize dominance — they cross their arms, reference power and competition and rarely smile. Harris’ choice to aim for warmth — her quick laugh, seemingly easy grin and her references to wellness and her family in what has been called a “self-help” style — is a brilliant strategy that can win her the presidency. This warmth helps her avoid the backlash that women, and women of color in particular, inevitably face for showing power.

Female leaders must walk a fine line between hard-hitting leadership and pleasant amiableness. Don’t be emotional, but don’t be cold. Take charge, but don’t be bossy. This impossible balancing act (brilliantly described in that famous “Barbie” monologue) is an impossible test that many female leaders, including Hillary Clinton, fail. As a woman of color, Harris faces an even higher bar. And she likely knows it.

In a recently published study, I asked dozens of Black female managers to tell me about their approach to leadership. I first asked each to imagine she was the first and only Black woman in a high-profile leadership role. I then asked them to describe if they would seek to show their dominance or their warmth in the leadership style they would adopt. And how did they think others would react to it?

These managers said they would be more likely to adopt a warm leadership style — and they expected more punishment, including backlash, for dominant leadership. White women said the opposite. They said they’d be less likely to adopt a warm leadership style and more likely to expect punishment for warm leadership.

Michelle Obama, one of the most well-known Black women in the world, alluded to the backlash that Black women may face for dominance. During her 2018 book tour, she referenced Sheryl Sandberg’s famous “lean in” mantra, quipping, “that s— doesn’t work all the time” — a comment for which she received (you guessed it) backlash.

Are Black women leaders right to expect punishment for showing dominance? To find out, I collected 250,000 remarks made by hundreds of Black and white members of Congress, including Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke and Barack Obama. I then collected 18,000 editorials written about these same politicians during their congressional tenures. The more often Black congresswomen used dominant language on the House or Senate floor — words such as “assertive,” “competitive” and “strong” — the more often journalists wrote about them using cold language — words such as “rude” and “unlikable.” There was no such backlash for white congresswomen, Black congressmen or white congressmen.

It’s not only journalists who penalize Black female leaders who use dominant language — voters do too. I asked more than 800 American voters to review the social media profiles of politicians, whom they assumed to be real. In reality, the profiles were faked for the purpose of the study. The more a Black woman used dominant language in her profile and tweets, the less likable voters rated her. White women who used the same type of language were subject to no such backlash.

The data are clear: Black women are right to expect and try to avoid backlash. For them, conveying dominance through their speech can spell disaster.

Considering how accomplished she is, judging Harris as unserious or incompetent because she chooses to project warmth would be foolish. It also would overlook a reality that Black women know all too well.

Cydney Hurston Dupree is an associate professor of organizational behavior at University College London’s School of Management. @cydneydupree

America’s seafood leaders are pushing back on new plans from Democrats on Capitol Hill to revive a legal doctrine that fishermen say threatens to “silence” them.

On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., led several of her Democrat colleagues in introducing the Stop Corporate Capture Act (SCCA), which she says is aimed at stopping corporations from “hijacking” the government. 

The bill would codify what’s known as the Chevron doctrine – a legal theory established in the 1980s that says if a federal regulation is challenged, the courts should defer to the expertise of the agency. 

The Supreme Court last month overruled that doctrine, the result of a lawsuit filed by fishermen against the government claiming that it imposed rules on their industry that Congress did not allow. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that Chevron deference “permits the Executive Branch to exercise powers not given to it.”

HOW MAINE LOBSTERMEN TURNED ‘SLAP IN THE FACE’ FROM WHITE HOUSE INTO POLICY VICTORY

With the new threat of the Chevron doctrine finding permanence in federal law, New England fishermen are crying foul and pointing to the recent offshore wind disaster wreaking havoc on the Massachusetts island of Nantucket as a prime example of why lawmakers should not give “expert bureaucrats” power over their industry. 

“So-called expert bureaucrats approved the Vineyard Wind turbines that are falling apart in Senator Warren’s home state, spreading debris from Nantucket to Cape Cod. Fishermen have always known that offshore wind will be a disaster for our oceans. But alphabet soup agencies used Chevron deference to silence us,” Jerry Leeman, CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA), told Fox News Digital. 

NEFSA CEO Jerry Leeman says, “So-called expert bureaucrats approved the Vineyard Wind turbines that are falling apart in Senator Warren’s home state, spreading debris from Nantucket to Cape Cod.” (Courtesy Jerry Leeman)

“Without Chevron, fishermen finally have a chance to protect their jobs, heritage, communities and the marine environment from regulators and developers who are industrializing the ocean.”

Vineyard Wind is a joint venture between foreign entities Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, which built wind farms off the coast of Massachusetts. 

Earlier this month, a blade the length of a football field snapped off a wind turbine, sending debris and shards of fiberglass into the ocean, much of which washed ashore in Nantucket.

MAINE LOBSTERMEN CATCH BIG COURT VICTORY AGAINST BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S ‘EGREGIOUS’ REGULATIONS

Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks during a Bloomberg Television interview on Capitol Hill on July 12, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

NEFSA and other groups like the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) have pushed back against the Biden administration’s offshore wind development, but so far to no avail. 

Notably, Vineyard Wind is a recipient of a 30% tax break carved out by the Inflation Reduction Act, which extended and increased tax credits for wind energy projects that began construction prior to Jan. 1, 2025.

The concern over the Chevron doctrine being codified in law is that fishermen like Leeman, who contend that they are the true experts in their own industry, are outweighed by government agencies that regulate them if a court challenge arises.

Steve Forbes said, “Sen. Warren’s attacks on America’s small and family businesses knows no bounds. She wants to put bureaucrats back in charge of small businesses when the Supreme Court rightfully liberated them from big government.”

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION BLASTED FOR ‘HYPOCRISY’ ON OFFSHORE WIND AS IT SCRAMBLES TO PROBE WHALE DEATHS

Maine lobstermen haul in their latest catch off the state’s coast. (Maine Lobstermens Association/Marketing Collaborative)

“The new bill from Sen. Warren and the far-left in Congress to codify the Chevron Doctrine into law is an attempted end-run around the Supreme Court’s recent ruling reining in unaccountable federal agencies,” said Elaine Parker of the Job Creators Network Foundation. 

“Sen. Warren and her band are trying to farm out their job of legislating to bureaucrats, making it easier to grow the size and scope of the federal government at the expense of Main Street,” Parker said, adding that the bill is “likely unconstitutional.” 

“This [bill] shows once again that Democrats side with regulators over ordinary Americans,” she said. 

Warren’s office did not return Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

A collection of fringe radical groups are calling for demonstrations in Chicago this August at the Democratic National Convention — a “March on the DNC” for Palestine. We study political movements, and we’ve participated in more than a few ourselves. We share the concerns of many Americans about Israel’s actions in Gaza, the need for an immediate cease-fire and the release of hostages and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. But we’re not going to heed the call to protest in Chicago. We hope others will stay away as well.

Here’s why.

In a democracy, protest movements can play a vital role in reshaping the national debate on important issues. But they have to hone their message and choose when and how to make their case. There were major protests at all three Democratic conventions in the 1960s. Two of them eventually got the results they hoped for. One backfired.

In 1960, when John F. Kennedy was nominated in Los Angeles, civil rights protesters, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., carefully orchestrated a 5,000-person march and daily pickets at the convention demanding a strong pro-civil rights plank in the Democratic platform. It was a first at a convention, and Kennedy was cautiously supportive, though it took several more years of protests before he embraced the Civil Rights Act, which became law in 1964, the year after his assassination.

When Lyndon B. Johnson was nominated that same year in Atlantic City, civil rights activists, now driving for voting rights, supported the integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party delegates in place of the all-white regular Mississippi delegation. They didn’t unseat the regulars, but their impact on delegates and public opinion was undeniable. A year later, with Johnson’s support, Congress passed the watershed Voting Rights Act.

The convention protests of 1960 and 1964 followed a sophisticated and pragmatic strategy of working within and without the party apparatus. The leaders crafted demands that appealed to the best in the American democratic tradition — equal rights for all. They delivered historic gains for African Americans.

In 1968, when Hubert Humphrey was nominated for president in Chicago, it was a different story. Protesters again showed up in the streets outside the convention, this time to demonstrate their opposition to the Vietnam War. That opposition was justified. Targeting that convention that year, and their wild rumpus approach, was not.

Due mostly to the brutal tactics employed by the Chicago police, the result was bloody chaos in the streets. Some protest organizers believed dramatic televised images of confrontations would strengthen their cause, winning the sympathy of the viewing public.

They were wrong. Polling revealed that most television viewers — 56%, according to a Gallup poll — blamed the protesters, not the “police riot,” for the disturbances. Republican Richard Nixon, campaigning to restore “law and order,” defeated Humphrey that November. He prolonged the Vietnam War well into the next decade.

Antiwar protests ultimately helped shift public opinion away from the U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. They produced a new wave of liberal and progressive politicians. But the protests at the 1968 Democratic convention set back the cause.

Today, those who want to protest the war in Gaza need to think about how to further that goal. Will the cause of peace and Palestinian rights be helped or hindered by demonstrations at this year’s Democratic convention in Chicago?

More than 70 mostly small-membership organizations are endorsing the upcoming protests. The key organizers, the ones who will determine the message this protest conveys by its slogans and actions, are members of the ultra-leftist Party for Socialism and Liberation, and its front organization, the ANSWER coalition. This is the same group behind the demonstration that burned an American flag and defaced monuments in a “day of rage” as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress last week.

Conspicuously absent from the list of endorsing organizations are the politically savvy major labor unions, civil rights and environmental organizations, women’s rights and LGBTQ+ groups, and community organizing networks, such as PICO California, MoveOn or Indivisible.

Could it be that they recognize that in this election season, the primary goal has to be to defeat Donald Trump, and to help Democratic candidates win in the House and Senate? Perhaps they don’t want to lose voters to a perception that Democrats are the party of chaos in the streets or rabid anti-Americanism.

Many of the groups behind the Chicago protests are not simply pro-Palestine or anti-Israel. As the “March on the DNC” website puts it, they dismiss the Democratic Party as “a tool of billionaires and corporations.”

Even one of the larger groups endorsing the demonstration, Democratic Socialists of America, has adopted a politically self-defeating rationale for doing so. DSA’s Chicago chapter recently posted that making the “DNC a complete political disaster” — through disruption, confrontation and extremist rhetoric — is as important as ending all U.S. support for Israel.

In fact, many of these groups don’t believe in electoral politics as a vehicle for change. They are enamored of revolutionary fantasies. They seem to believe that Trump’s reelection can hasten the prospects for a fairy-tale end to capitalism.

In the meantime, they are indifferent to the threat that a second Trump administration poses to democracy, workers, the environment, immigrants, minorities, LGBTQ+ people, the poor, respect for science, voting rights, common decency and, yes, even to Palestinian rights. (Trump is a strong ally of Israel’s most conservative forces.)

If this year’s Chicago protests produce scenes of chaos in the streets and Democratic-leaning voters decide to abstain or choose a doomed third-party candidate — who will benefit? In a remarkable bit of political jujitsu, the Republicans, instigators of the Jan. 6 insurrection, are campaigning as the party of law and order.

Protests may achieve changes we want to see. But this time, it’s too risky. Instead of demonstrating against Democrats, we’re going to campaign and vote for them. You should too.

Peter Dreier teaches politics at Occidental College and is the author of several books including “We Own the Future: Democratic Socialism, American Style.” Maurice Isserman teaches history at Hamilton College; his books include “America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s.”