Is it racist or sexist for Trump to call Harris "stupid"?

No, and it's stupid for the Washington Post to say it is.

In its paper edition, the Washington Post titles this anti-Trump hit piece: “As Trump calls Harris ‘stupid,’ voters and experts detect sexism, racism.” The subtitle of the internet version goes even further: “Trump’s sneering dismissiveness of Harris’s intellect reeks of racism and sexism.” (Emphasis added)

Like all of Trump’s name-calling, describing Harris as stupid is offensive. It’s also ironic, given all of the stupid things Trump says and the fact that Harris outdebated him.

But there’s nothing racist or sexist about Trump calling Harris stupid.

To the best of my knowledge, Trump never called Barack Obama — the first black presidential nominee of a major party — stupid. Nor, as far as I know, did he ever during the bitter campaign of 2016 use that word to describe Hillary Clinton — the first female presidential nominee of a major party. By contrast, as the Post acknowledges, Trump has described Joe Biden as mentally deficient.

Clearly, then, Trump’s attack on Harris’ intelligence is not based on her race or gender. It’s based on the fact that (1) Trump is nasty as hell and (2) the attack has enough resonance to be effective.

Resonance/effectiveness is the key here. Trump could not have made criticism of Obama’s and Clinton’s intelligence stick, so he didn’t try. He could make criticism of Biden’s mental capacity stick, so he indulged in it.

Similarly, he thinks calling Harris stupid will resonate. Thus, he does it.

Harris isn’t really stupid. By ordinary standards, I think she’s intelligent enough.

However, there’s a strong case that her intelligence is significantly below the level Americans expect from a president. One need only listen to her speak off-script to appreciate that case.

Post reporter Ashley Parker disagrees. She cites “Harris’s deeply accomplished résumé”:

She has a bachelor’s degree from Howard University and a law degree from the University of California.

Having worked in Washington, D.C. for almost 40 years, I can attest that more than a few Howard grads possess no more than ordinary intelligence. As for that law degree from the “University of California,” there are multiple UC law schools. It’s interesting that the Post doesn’t identify which one conferred a degree on Harris.

If Harris had graduated from UC Berkeley law school, one of the best in the nation, that would be quite impressive. So too, if she had graduated from UCLA’s law school.

But Harris graduated, instead, from UC Law San Francisco, formerly called UC Hastings. These days that school ranks 82nd among U.S. law schools. However, in Harris’ day, it ranked either just inside or just outside the top 25.

That’s good. And, of course, even graduates of schools ranked much lower than Hastings was can be smart, successful lawyers.

But let’s be honest. Given the massive preferences conferred by law schools on black applicants, both then and now, if Harris had truly distinguished herself either in college or on the LSAT, she would likely have attended a law school higher up the food chain.

If she was set on the Bay Area, there were two such law schools. Her sister, Maya Harris, graduated from one of them — Stanford.

In addition to her academic background, the Post points out that Harris is a “former San Francisco district attorney, former California attorney general, former U.S. senator and now vice president.” That sounds impressive. But Harris’ rise through the ranks of the San Francisco/California Democratic machine owes itself in part to her romantic relationship with Willie Brown, the kingmaker who was married at the time of their affair.

In any case, all the paper credentials in the world can’t overcome the fact that Harris often does not come across as intelligent when she speaks in public. It’s that fact, not her race or gender, that accounts for Trump’s offensive attack.

Finally, what about those “experts” the Post says detect racism and sexism in Trump’s characterization of Harris’ intelligence? I’m not sure what counts as expertise in this area, but I’m pretty sure the Post fails to identify anyone who would qualify as having it.

It cites a Democratic operative who trains female Democrats to run for office. It cites a former Democratic congresswoman who happens to be Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law. And it cites two pro-Harris voters.

In other words, it cites only partisan Democrats with no special expertise in what constitutes racism and sexism. Again, I don’t believe there is such a thing as special expertise in these subjects. But the fact that the Post couldn’t come up with a more impressive-seeming lineup confirms the weakness of its thesis.

The Post is now in the habit of making controversial, hyper-partisan claims that fit its narrative and, in lieu of meaningful evidence, attributing them to “experts.” Often, experts who take the opposing view are not consulted, or at least not cited.

In this case, the Post’s resort to “experts” is even more feeble than usual. That’s not surprising given the obvious weaknesses in its attempt to ascribe racism and sexism to Trump’s attack on Harris’ intellectual acuity.