Division, Disinformation, and Democracy: Lessons Learned From Kamala Harris and Leni Robredo

Are aspirations for progressive governance doomed because progressive female presidentiables keep losing?

Last January 20, two months after his victory in the polls, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States. The president-elect has invited right-wing populist leaders to the ceremony, including former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, El Salvador’s President Nayib Sukele, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

His conservative Republican, "America-first" approach to economic, immigration and foreign policy, and reproductive rights had appealed to Americans angry at illegal immigrants, attracted conservative young men, and even drawn in Black, Latino, Asian, and Pacific Islander people—earning him 312 votes in the US electoral college against Kamala Harris's 226.

Immediately after the results of the US polls, social media posts pointed out its similarities with the Philippines’ 2022 national elections. The United States’ 2024 elections felt reminiscent of the similarly divisive electoral race between President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. and Vice President Maria Leonor 'Leni' Robredo. Marcos Jr.'s campaign relied heavily on misleading narratives and electoral alliances, whereas Robredo's focused more on progressive ideals and the promotion of good governance.

In light of the electoral defeats experienced by both Robredo and Harris, what lessons can be drawn? What broader implications do these events hold on the political landscapes of the Philippines and the United States, including the relations between them and the dynamics of their respective electorates?

Furthermore, what do these developments reveal about the prevailing political conditions that demand further analysis and judgment?

Art by Romi Okada

Political background and challenges

Although both are lawyers experienced in public service, Robredo and Harris differ in terms of their political background and entry into office.

To begin with, Robredo’s political journey was rather unplanned. Following her education in economics and law, much of her life was rooted in community service, as well as legal support and advocacy. The death of her husband Jesse Robredo started Leni’s journey to politics. Robredo was then urged to run for office and won a congressional seat in Camarines Sur, beating the Nelly Favis-Villafuerte from the powerful Villafuerte dynasty. During her term in Congress, Robredo served as the vice chairman of the House committees on good governance, public accountability, and revision of laws, while also being a member of 11 other legislative panels.

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, pursued a more intentional and directed path towards law and politics, launching her career with degrees in political science, economics, and law. She pursued a career as a prosecutor in the district attorney’s office and subsequently served on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Select Committee on Intelligence. Dubbed as the United States’ first Indian-American senator and California’s first female and South Asian attorney general, she gained national prominence as a senator for her sharp questioning of officials in Trump’s administration—energizing Democratic voters and fueled calls for her to run for president in 2020. However, the Democratic Party’s shift towards a more progressive ideology made her “smart on crime” record less appealing. 

Vice presidential journey

Robredo entered vice presidency when she was unexpectedly chosen as the Liberal Party’s candidate and ran alongside presidentiable Mar Roxas in the 2016 elections, where she narrowly defeated then-senator Bongbong Marcos by a margin of 280,000 votes. The progression in Robredo’s career—from a public servant’s widow to a vice presidential candidate—led many to draw comparisons to former President Corazon “Cory” Cojuangco Aquino. However, unlike Robredo, Aquino had never held any prior political position, and she was a member of a prominent political clan. 

Winning the 2020 U.S. elections, Harris, meanwhile, became the first female vice president—also the first Black and South Asian person to hold the position. When Joe Biden became the Democratic nominee for president, he vowed to select a female running mate and, when national protests over racial justice broke out following George Floyd’s death, Harris emerged as his top choice. 

Despite their rise to the national posts, Robredo and Harris’s assumption to office did not go uncontested, as they faced significant challenges to their vice presidency.

Then-president Rodrigo Duterte had already been constraining the vice president’s powers early into his term. Duterte instructed Robredo to stop attending Cabinet meetings, which prompted her to resign from the Cabinet on December 5th.

Then, in 2019, the former vice president was fired only three weeks after Duterte appointed her as co-chair of the Inter-Agency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs (ICAD). Prior to her role in the committee, Robredo has argued that Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ failed and pushed for a health-based approach to drug policy instead. This stance prompted a public challenge from Duterte for her to take charge of the campaign.

Nonetheless, unwillingness to grant Robredo access to documents and intelligence reports indicated that Duterte and his allies did not want the former vice president to succeed. Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Chief Aaron Aquino, for example, refused to provide her with the list of high-value targets and other critical documents, whereas Duterte had threatened to remove Robredo from her post if she disclosed “classified information of the Philippine government to foreign individuals or entities." This goes to show that even as the country’s second-highest executive official, Robredo was significantly limited by the presidential administration and its allies to institute broader reforms.

Similar to Duterte offering Robredo to lead the campaign against illegal drugs, Harris has been given a politically difficult task by the Biden administration, that is, to address the “root causes” of migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Still, Republicans blamed Harris for the Biden administration’s troubles at the U.S.-Mexico border, where authorities have recorded historically high levels of illegal crossings over the past three years—even labeling her the “border czar.” But Harris also angered liberals and activists by telling would-be migrants in Guatemala to not attempt crossing into the U.S. border and warned them that they would be sent back. This has put her at odds with both sides of the political spectrum.

Although both women faced challenges to their positions, their vice-presidential ordeals were distinct: Robredo was alienated by dominant forces of the government, while Harris was given a politically difficult task that earned her criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. Unlike Robredo, however, Harris did not face any suppression of her capabilities as vice president, nor was she openly challenged by the president to handle a particularly difficult program as a test of her capabilities.

Public perception and sexism

In terms of public perception, the media viewed Robredo rather positively during her campaign for president, depicting her as a 'bastion’ of hope against the widespread waves of disinformation. Echoing her own words from a presidential debate, they highlighted her declaration that “the last man standing is a woman.”

“Your faith turned things around. This campaign was never just mine, it was always ours.” In her book “Tayo ang Liwanag,” Robredo admitted she was initially hesitant to run for the presidency due to her low rankings in surveys. Yet her campaign was often compared to the spirit of the EDSA Revolution, as many supporters were motivated not only by the ambition of securing her victory but by a shared sense of purpose and a desire to transform the nation. 

Harris, meanwhile, developed a negative image for being inconsistent. She seemed to lack cohesion in terms of her policy agenda and voter base.

“Once the campaign began, she sometimes seemed unable to describe her own policies.”

David Leonhardt of The New York Times commented on the ambivalence Harris faced from across the political spectrum. As vice president, she questioned global trade and praised border security—possibly alienating parts of the Democratic base by echoing the “language of elite liberalism.” Meanwhile, observers were similarly wary of her potential as president when President Joe Biden underperformed in presidential debates for his reelection bid.

Kamala Harris’s circumstances were related more to defining her political identity and navigating public perception. A poll aggregation from FiveThirtyEight showed that Harris had only a 38% approval from US voters. Harris has also been viewed as a continuation of the Biden administration—quite contrary to the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the status quo and their desire for change.

Furthermore, Harris' political viewpoints have fluctuated between progressive and moderate positions, alienating constituencies on the American left, the youth, and the working class.

Despite Harris’s wide-ranging portfolio on policies ranging from foreign policy to reproductive rights, she has faced criticism for either concentrating too much on a single topic or not committing to a specific policy area. Additionally, she has been scrutinized for lacking clarity about her accomplishments and the issues she intends to prioritize.

Perceptions of Harris as a pure progressive are unlikely to hold considering her “elite liberal” language and seemingly conservative stances on border security and trade. Robredo, meanwhile, places a strong emphasis on good governance, inclusivity, and accessibility of services in her campaign—a political agenda more progressive than that of Harris.

In the 2024 presidential race, meanwhile, despite initial hesitation from liberal publications and intensified criticism from conservative outlets, Harris had quickly gained the support of Democrats after Biden announced his withdrawal of candidacy—which was further bolstered by her utilization of media. 

Harris embarked on what the media has dubbed a “media blitz,” where she appeared on a podcast, a talk show, and a Fox interview to defend the Biden-Harris administration’s performance on prevailing issues such as immigration and economy. Yet, many of her claims on these issues lacked the necessary context to provide a more accurate representation of the administration’s actions.

Hope was not lost for Harris as she was still able to ramp up support through what is perhaps one of her most effective campaign strategies: “brat summer.”

Her @KamalaHQ social media team shared remixes and memes featuring the vice president set to songs from Charli XCX’s “brat” album and Harris’s own viral line: “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?” This approach resonated widely with younger audiences, as the TikTok account’s follower count rose from 440,000 to 5.7 million.

Indeed, social media was a significant campaign arena for both women. But platforms and popularity aside, seeing Robredo and Harris as political leaders will never be complete without mentioning the role of womanhood in their journey towards the presidential ticket.

Both vice presidents were previously subjected to sexism and misogyny throughout their terms, emerging as a potent force that may have influenced the dynamics and outcomes of their respective campaigns.

Robredo faced sexism on Facebook during her three-month-long presidential campaign. Words that frequently came up on Facebook infographics and videos include “weak,” “bobo” (stupid), “lutang” (absent-minded), “desperada” (desperate), “sinungaling” (liar), “malandi” (flirty), “bayaran” (sex slave), and “saltik” (mentally ill). Robredo was also vilified through derogatory labels such as “Leni Lugaw” (implying absent-mindedness) and “Madumb” (a play on the words “madam” and “dumb”). Furthermore, as a family composed entirely of women, the Robredos became frequent targets of misogynistic attacks. In addition to enduring sexist remarks, fabricated scandals of her daughters, Aika and Tricia Robredo, were circulated online.

Likewise, Harris was not immune to sexist slurs. Pro-Trump vendors had been selling items with offensive phrases, aiming to discredit Harris not just as a vice president but also her sexual ‘status’ as a woman. Some Christian nationalist leaders had also sown fear among their followers by claiming that she is possessed by a “Jezebel spirit,” a term that has been historically used to cast Black women as sexual and untrustworthy, and suggests that Harris is under the influence of demons. In July, Trump himself had attacked Harris’s alleged lack of political will due to her status as a woman, stating that “she’ll be so easy for them. She’ll be like a play toy.”

While no study cites misogyny and sexism as a primary factor influencing the outcome of the 2022 presidential elections in the Philippines, much of the online disinformation and hate speech against Robredo was rooted in gender-based attacks.

Likewise, there are no existing studies cementing that misogyny was the sole determinant of the 2024 U.S. elections, but much of the hate speech against Harris—whether shared online or through the mouths of members of the rival party—attacked her womanhood.

Thus, although it is not the sole factor influencing electoral outcomes in the Philippines and United States, misogyny nonetheless proved to be a potent force.

Influence of disinformation in social media

Though Harris and Robredo's campaign strengths and public policy experience were pivotal in their presidential bids, it is equally crucial to analyze the factors behind their rivals' victories.

Both Bongbong Marcos and Donald Trump leveraged well-funded, far-reaching disinformation campaigns to undermine their opponents and amplify their own narratives. While Trump's messaging was arguably more aggressive than Marcos's, both campaigns successfully tapped into themes of nationalism and addressed economic concerns to resonate with voters.

Disinformation and the power of social media narratives were prevalent during the Philippines’ 2022 elections. Marcos’s “well-oiled” social media campaign had turned the tide in his favor by undermining the atrocities committed under Martial Law and framing the regime of his father as the country’s “golden age.” 

Attempts to rewrite or whitewash had gone all the way back to 2014 and the 2016 Philippine elections and reached its peak reach, potency, and polarization during the 2022 elections, with micro- and nano-influencers becoming the main agents of disinformation.

On the other side of the fence, Robredo and her supporters—dubbed the “Pink Movement”—saw themselves as catalysts for “restoring democracy,” evident in their attempts to counter the fake news and disinformation propagated by Marcos-Duterte supporters.

But in spite of Robredo’s “radikal na pagmamahal” (radical love) approach to encourage undecided voters or supporters of rival candidates to join her cause, Robredo’s supporters instead created an environment of divisiveness, hostility, and a black-and-white “us vs. them” narrative that further repelled Marcos-Duterte supporters from Robredo. 

For many voters, Robredo supporters were “elitist” as they attacked the electorate that voted for Marcos and Duterte, going as far as calling them “bobotante” (stupid voters). The mudslinging and lack of open dialogue thus intensified the polarization between the two political camps.

While disinformation in the 2022 Philippine elections was primarily proliferated by social media accounts, circumstances were somewhat different in the United States: false information was often sourced from the very candidates themselves.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” admitted U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, acknowledging the fictitious nature of some claims promoted by Donald Trump.

Trump's political strategy has long relied on divisive rhetoric and baseless accusations, such as Haitian immigrants in Springfield eating cats and dogs, and Democrats allegedly bringing millions of undocumented immigrants into the country to sway elections. Trump had also benefited from a $119 million campaign investment by Elon Musk who also rolled back content moderation policies on the platform.

Kamala Harris’s rapid response team, however, has repeatedly posted misleading clips and captions to frame Trump in a negative light.

One post suggested that Trump was confused with the locations of his rallies, addressing people from North Carolina when he was in Pennsylvania. Trump was only acknowledging supporters from North Carolina in the crowd, however.

In another, @KamalaHQ incorrectly quoted Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, as supporting the privatization of veteran healthcare. Vance, however, only spoke about increasing the options of veterans to choose private healthcare.

@KamalaHQ had also clipped Trump’s remarks on taxes to make it seem that he is going to cut the taxes of the wealthy “even more.” The full clip, however, showed that Trump was referring to eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security benefits.

This goes to show that all four presidential candidates in the Philippine and United States elections were associated with disinformation or polarizing narratives—whether made by themselves, their campaign team, or their own supporters. 

Bongbong Marcos’ machinery was more extensive in its proliferation of false information, whereas Robredo had little to do with deceptive narratives. Her supporters, however, created a polarizing environment between them and voters for Marcos.

Trump and Harris were more explicit in their attempts to mislead and promote false narratives to support their own campaigns and smear that of the other.

While Robredo was primarily a victim of disinformation, with systematic smear campaigns, misogynistic attacks, and false narratives aimed at undermining her credibility and political strength, Harris—despite facing racist and sexist attacks—also engaged in misleading narratives against her opponents. Her campaign, at times, has participated in framing certain narratives to discredit rivals, rather than actively countering disinformation.

Differences in campaign funding

Indeed, both Robredo and Harris had to encounter difficulties in climbing their way up to the presidential ticket, not least the pervasive misogyny that comes with being female candidates.

Still, it would be incredibly unfair to suggest that both women are cut from the same cloth, living in the same world, or had the same level of political and financial backing. 

Robredo’s campaign was fueled by grassroots movements and the “spirit of volunteerism,” relying on small donors and the dedication of supporters who distributed flyers and conducted door-to-door outreach. Due to the sheer amount of donors, both small and big-time, the former vice president had received a total of ₱388 million in contributions.

By contrast, Harris’s fundraising efforts brought in over a whopping $1 billion, much of which was spent on production costs that included celebrity-studded events featuring Oprah Winfrey and Beyoncé—a tactic that many analysts scrutinized due to its  inefficiency in bringing in votes and engaging people in policy and direction.

She even outraised Trump among last-minute major donors by a 5-to-1 margin and continues to solicit donations despite her electoral defeat.

Harris’s exorbitant spending reflects how corporatism undermines U.S. elections, where modern campaigns prioritize high-profile endorsements and extravagant fundraising over substantive policy discussions or direct engagement with voters.

With candidates having access to wealthy backers, they gain an overwhelming advantage where elections become less about ideas and more about glamour and financial muscle. Lavish spending on celebrity endorsements and media events risk turning politics into a spectacle rather than a public service.

Although both Harris and Robredo secured numerous donors and hosted celebrity-studded events during their presidential campaigns, Harris significantly outspent Robredo, relying heavily on big-money donors. In contrast, Robredo’s campaign was largely volunteer-driven, with door-to-door efforts fostering a more personal and dynamic connection with voters. Thus, her grassroots approach can be seen as a more authentic effort to cultivate participatory democracy.

Conclusion

To wrap it up, both Leni Robredo and Kamala Harris are lawyers with backgrounds in economics but took different career paths—Robredo in community service and Harris as a prosecutor.

Both vice presidents also faced significant opposition in office, with Robredo enduring open hostility from the Duterte administration and Harris grappling with politically charged issues such as immigration and facing criticism over her handling of the role.

Disinformation shaped their campaigns, though Harris also used misleading statements to discredit rivals. The starkest contrast between the two is the funds used for their campaigns: Robredo had to lie heavily on grassroots efforts, whereas Harris held big-budget events featuring celebrities.

Gender-based discrimination, moreover, was a shared struggle between the two, and is perhaps the most uniting feature between their experiences.

Misogyny, especially posts circulated online, was clearly a significant factor in influencing voters’ perceptions of both candidates. But their campaign images were also equally important. On one hand, Robredo could have alienated some of the voter base due to the strong “us vs. them” narrative being reinforced by her supporters. Harris, on the other, was viewed as having an inconsistent policy focus.

And to top it all off, Robredo had to face more resistance and skepticism among voters due to being an opposition figure of a popular president. Harris was the running mate of the elected chief executive and, thus, did not quite face the same difficulties as Robredo did.

Whatever transpires in the United States will inevitably affect the Philippines. In light of the polarization, disillusionment, and political turmoil brewing in both nations, where does this leave us—the Philippine electorate?

As for Trump’s victory and Kamala’s loss in the polls, many aspects of America’s leadership—from national security to economic relations—would influence the Philippines. Trump is keen on pushing for a transactional, “America First” policy, focusing on protectionism and cost-driven partnerships. In the first Trump administration, the United States has scaled down its involvement in global affairs. Thus, it can be expected that Trump’s second term as president might result in reducing U.S. involvement in regional security matters, such as the West Philippine Sea. In March, however, the United States restored $500 million in military aid to the Philippines in what may be perceived as Trump asserting the U.S.’s reliability as a security ally.

In terms of the economy, Trump’s America-centric trade policies include implementing stringent restrictions like a 10-20% universal tariff on all exports to the US. Because the U.S. is a major trading partner for the Philippines, a universal tariff would increase the cost of Philippine goods in the U.S. market, potentially reducing demand for its products. In January 2025, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) expressed concern that the proposed tariffs could impact the Philippines’ export sector. However, exporters like the Philippine Exporters Confederation Inc. (Philexport) believe that the tariffs may not significantly affect the Philippines, suggesting that the competitive pricing of Philippine goods might still appeal to U.S. buyers. In March, however, the DTI remained confident that the Philippines would not be affected by Trump’s reciprocal tariffs due to the domestically-oriented nature of its economy.

From a sociopolitical perspective, Trump’s return to office could reignite discussions on populist nationalism and may garner support from some Filipinos due to his advocacy for traditional values. Conversely, Harris’s loss could signify an emerging global preference for strong, authoritative leadership—often at the expense of human rights, democratic processes, and social equality. Such a shift could align with the rise of identity-based politics, spurring debates on cultural norms, values, and reproductive rights within Philippine society.

Disinformation might continue to be a key player in Philippine and American politics and may further erode trust in institutions and mainstream media. And because disinformation encourages clashes between progressive and conservative political cultures in both nations, there may be little space left for dialogue or understanding along party lines.

For the Philippines, Leni Robredo is unlikely to seek a national government position in the near future despite calls for her to run for Senate. The former vice president filed her candidacy for Naga City mayor in October 2024, saying that her passion is in community work—best exemplified in the duties of a mayor. Compared to the strength of Robredo’s campaign in 2022, this now leaves the country without a strong opposition to the current administration. 

Even the seemingly strong and stable Uniteam alliance, who both won during the 2022 Philippine presidential elections, has gone awry following tensions between the Marcos and Duterte camps. The escalating feud between the two exposes deep fractures within the ruling coalition, but it also creates a false binary for voters—forcing them to choose between two warring factions rather than fostering a truly diverse and competitive political landscape. With no strong opposition currently in place, this manufactured division risks limiting the country's political discourse to mere power struggles rather than substantive governance and reform.

While Kamala Harris and Leni Robredo’s circumstances are not one-to-one reflections of each other, their respective journeys in politics offer resounding lessons about the dangers of disinformation and misogyny and their pervasive influence in modern-day politics. In the rise of disinformation-driven and macho-style populism, it is essential that we remain vigilant and discerning about how these narratives can shape the choices we make in electing our country's leaders, especially with the upcoming 2025 midterm elections.

Their experiences serve as a reminder that Robredo and Harris are not similar despite their parallel outcomes. They may have been both vice presidents—both women—who have had to face misogyny and disinformation online, but they are ultimately different in circumstance, policy, leadership, and political context.