Kristi Noem Sparked Outrage For Refusing To Do This 1 Thing — And A Historian Has A Theory Why
The Handshake Heard Around America
Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota found herself at the center of a media firestorm recently, and it wasn’t because of a controversial policy decision or political stance. Instead, it was something far more basic and deeply ingrained in American culture: she refused to shake someone’s hand. This seemingly simple act of declining a handshake sparked widespread outrage across social media and news outlets, raising questions about political decorum, personal boundaries, and the unspoken rules that govern our social interactions. The incident has prompted historians and political analysts to weigh in on why such a small gesture could cause such a massive reaction, revealing much about our current political climate and the expectations we place on public figures, particularly women in positions of power.
The handshake has been a fundamental part of human interaction for centuries, serving as a universal symbol of greeting, agreement, and mutual respect. When a prominent political figure refuses to extend this courtesy, it sends shockwaves through the public consciousness. People immediately begin to speculate about the reasons behind the refusal: Was it a deliberate snub? A political statement? A personal boundary being enforced? Or perhaps something more nuanced that speaks to the complex dynamics of power, gender, and expectation in modern American politics? As the controversy unfolded, a respected historian stepped forward with a compelling theory that places Noem’s actions within a broader historical and social context, one that challenges us to reconsider what we think we know about political etiquette and the double standards that often apply to women in leadership roles.
The Historical Context of Political Handshakes
To understand why Noem’s refusal generated such intense backlash, we need to examine the historical significance of the handshake in American political life. According to the historian who analyzed this incident, the handshake has served as more than just a polite greeting in political circles—it’s been a crucial tool for establishing trust, signaling alliances, and demonstrating accessibility to constituents. From Abraham Lincoln famously shaking hands with thousands of visitors at White House receptions to modern presidential candidates working rope lines at campaign events, the willingness to physically connect with others has been seen as essential to American democratic tradition. Politicians who refuse to shake hands risk being perceived as aloof, elitist, or dismissive of the very people they’re supposed to represent.
However, the historian’s theory goes deeper than simply noting the importance of handshakes in political culture. The analysis suggests that the outrage directed at Noem reflects a particular set of expectations placed on female politicians that differs significantly from those applied to their male counterparts. Throughout American history, women in politics have had to navigate a minefield of contradictory demands: they must be warm but not weak, assertive but not aggressive, accessible but not overly familiar. When a male politician declines a handshake, it might be interpreted as strength, boundary-setting, or justified caution. When a woman does the same thing, she risks being labeled as cold, unfriendly, or violating the expectation that women should be more naturally accommodating and warm in their interpersonal interactions.
The historian points to numerous examples throughout recent political history where male politicians have declined handshakes or maintained physical distance without facing the same level of public criticism. These instances were often explained away as security concerns, scheduling conflicts, or simply the prerogative of someone in a position of authority. Yet when female politicians exercise the same autonomy over their physical interactions, the response is often swift and harsh. This double standard reveals an uncomfortable truth about how gender continues to shape political perception in America, even as more women than ever hold positions of significant political power. The expectation that women must be perpetually gracious, regardless of context or personal comfort, represents a lingering vestige of outdated gender norms that the political establishment has been slow to acknowledge or address.
Why This Incident Struck Such a Nerve
The intensity of the public reaction to Noem’s handshake refusal suggests that this incident touched on something deeper than simple etiquette concerns. In an era of intense political polarization, every action by a prominent political figure becomes subject to scrutiny and interpretation through partisan lenses. For Noem’s critics, the refusal was seen as emblematic of what they perceive as arrogance or disregard for ordinary citizens. For her supporters, it might have been viewed as a reasonable assertion of personal boundaries or a justified response to circumstances we might not fully understand from media reports alone. This divide illustrates how even the most mundane interactions can become flashpoints in our broader cultural and political battles.
The historian’s theory also considers the timing and context of modern American politics, where physical contact has taken on new significance in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the broader conversation about consent and personal boundaries that has emerged from movements like #MeToo. These cultural shifts have complicated the once-straightforward expectation that politicians should always be willing to shake hands, hug constituents, or engage in other forms of physical contact as part of their public duties. What was once seen as an unquestionable obligation of public service is now understood by many as a negotiable boundary that individuals—regardless of their position—have the right to set for themselves. This creates a tension between traditional expectations of political accessibility and evolving norms around bodily autonomy and consent.
Furthermore, the outrage reflects broader anxieties about the relationship between political leaders and the people they serve. In an age where many Americans feel increasingly disconnected from their elected representatives, symbolic gestures like handshakes take on outsized importance. They serve as tangible evidence that politicians remain “of the people” rather than an elite class apart. When a politician refuses this basic form of connection, it can feel like a rejection not just of an individual but of democratic principles themselves. This explains why such a small action can generate such disproportionate anger—it becomes a stand-in for larger frustrations about political representation, accountability, and access. The historian argues that understanding this displacement of broader political anxieties onto specific incidents helps explain why Noem’s handshake refusal became a national news story rather than a minor footnote.
Gender, Power, and the Politics of Likeability
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the historian’s theory centers on how gender expectations continue to shape political reception, particularly regarding the concept of “likeability.” Research has consistently shown that female politicians face a unique challenge: voters want them to be competent and strong, but not at the expense of being perceived as warm and likeable. This creates an impossible balancing act where women in politics must constantly calibrate their behavior to avoid being seen as either too soft or too harsh. A handshake refusal, which might be interpreted as a show of strength or independence in a male politician, risks triggering negative associations for a female politician—she might be seen as cold, unfriendly, or failing to meet gendered expectations of warmth and accessibility.
This dynamic is particularly pronounced for conservative women politicians like Noem, who must navigate expectations from both the general public and their own political base. Conservative political culture often emphasizes traditional values, including conventional gender roles, which can create additional pressure for female conservative leaders to perform femininity in specific ways while simultaneously demonstrating the strength and authority associated with political leadership. The historian suggests that the outrage over Noem’s handshake refusal may partly stem from this tension—she violated expected norms of feminine graciousness, and the reaction revealed how deeply invested people remain in those gendered expectations, even in contexts where we might claim to value equality and women’s empowerment.
The broader implications of this analysis are significant. If female politicians face disproportionate criticism for the same boundary-setting behaviors that male politicians routinely engage in without consequence, this represents a structural barrier to genuine equality in political life. Women who must constantly worry about being perceived as “likeable” in addition to being effective leaders operate under a different set of constraints than their male counterparts. This may influence their decision-making, their public presentation, and ultimately their ability to lead authentically and effectively. The handshake incident, viewed through this lens, becomes not just about one governor’s decision in one moment, but about the systemic challenges that continue to face women in American political life.
Moving Forward: Rethinking Political Expectations
As we reflect on the Kristi Noem handshake controversy and the historian’s insightful analysis, we’re challenged to reconsider what we expect from our political leaders and whether those expectations are applied fairly across gender lines. The incident serves as a reminder that seemingly minor social interactions in politics are never truly minor—they’re laden with symbolism, fraught with gendered expectations, and subject to intense public scrutiny. Rather than simply condemning or defending Noem’s specific action, we might use this moment to have a broader conversation about the standards we apply to politicians, the gendered dimensions of those standards, and whether our expectations serve democratic values or simply reinforce outdated norms.
This controversy also invites us to think more carefully about bodily autonomy and consent in political contexts. While accessibility and connection between leaders and citizens are important democratic values, they shouldn’t require anyone—regardless of gender or position—to violate their own boundaries or comfort levels regarding physical contact. Finding a balance between maintaining the democratic tradition of accessible leadership and respecting individual autonomy is a challenge our political culture must continue to navigate, particularly as norms around consent and personal boundaries continue to evolve. The path forward likely requires both politicians and the public to approach these situations with more nuance, recognizing that a handshake refusal might have legitimate reasons behind it and doesn’t necessarily signal contempt or dismissiveness toward constituents. At the same time, politicians might benefit from greater transparency about their reasoning when they deviate from expected norms, helping the public understand their choices rather than leaving room for speculation and outrage.
