Following the surprising turn of the 2024 election, a known insurgent has once again claimed the US presidency. Having previously tried to overturn an election, instigated an unresolved crisis, and unjustly criticizing immigrants, the notorious Donald Trump has not only procured a second term, but he managed to do so with significant public approval. Additionally, Republicans have been handed the reins of both houses of Congress, painting a bleak picture for Liberals.
However, with the return of Trump, the political atmosphere is not a mere repetition of 2017. It is, rather, a disconcerting evolution. The past eight years saw Trump transform the Republican party, aligning it with his own eccentricities. Unimpressed proponents within his party have either abandoned political life, or submitted themselves to Trump. The ‘wise heads’ of the executive branch have been replaced with Trump’s acolytes, forming a cabinet that is more loyal than experienced.
Initially, Trump depended on quite a few conventional advisors during his first term due to his unfamiliarity and lack of preparedness. This term, however, he has assembled a group of loyalists who, alongside a handful of traditional Republicans, make up the Cabinet. Meanwhile, conservatives have secured their stronghold on the Supreme Court, minimized Democrats’ lead with Hispanic voters, and fortified their rapport with the non-college-educated voting populace, disrupting the Democratic Party’s potential to exert federal dominance.
Disturbingly, the reign of Trump signifies a disaster for advocates of liberal democracy, balanced economic policy, and social justice for all disadvantaged individuals. It is disheartening to observe the popular sentimental shift towards a man who bears a clear disdain for immigration reform, expansive social safety nets, criminal justice overhaul, and environmentally friendly policies.
The thrust upon calamity demands that Democrats evolve their understanding of this political situation and formulate a viable strategy to reclaim the nation. To do that, Democrats will need to reassess their condition with a more unbiased approach. Over-reliance on ideologically appealing explanations rather than empirical analysis could lead the party further astray.
In the aftermath of Kamala Harris’ defeat, varied Democratic factions have sought refuge in simplistic and, for the most part, misguided explanations for the party’s failures. It will be useful to examine these in subsequent discussions. For now, however, it is important to address a pressing concern that the Left is permitting fanciful thinking to mask the harsh political truth.
Since the surprising election results, certain progressives have confidently drawn a universal conclusion—that Harris’s failure proves the Democratic party’s moderate approach to be insignificant and that the adoption of more radical policies is crucial for survival. While the attempt to reason this is commendable, their faith in this narrative seems largely misplaced.
It is true that Harris adopted a middle-ground approach on issues like border security, crime, and to some extent, economics. Despite valid arguments against compromising on such issues, it remains unclear if Harris’s loss was due to her adopted moderation. Any claims suggesting that her defeat proves moderation is intrinsically electorally unproductive are suspect.
To question such assumptions, consider the phenomenon where Harris outperformed in regions where both she and Trump simultaneously conducted rallies and broadcasted ads. It proposes an interesting paradox: if Harris’s moderate stance was the issue, why did she perform better in areas where this messaging was more prominent, even under heavy Pro-Trump promotional pressure?
In a pre-election poll, around 51 percent of voters viewed Harris as ‘too liberal’, whereas merely 6 percent believed she swayed ‘too conservative’. In the 2024 election, Democratic candidates who outperformed Harris among their constituents were mostly moderates, like Jon Tester, Amy Klobuchar, Jared Golden, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez.
Harris was a liberal senator and held many left-wing positions in the 2020 Democratic primary. The Trump campaign relentlessly attacked her for the same. It’s difficult thus to determine whether it was her progressive background or her moderating sentiments that were more detrimental to her prospects. Yet, we know that Trump’s political advisers preferred to focus on the former.
Under Biden-Harris, the White House had made several leftist policy decisions in domestic affairs, and Trump’s campaign tried to portray Harris as a continuation of the same. However, parties overseeing periods of inflation are known to lose favor among voters, regardless of their ideological inclinations, which puts into question any simplified ideological verdict on Harris’s defeat.
Insisting that Democrats tilt towards absolutist centrism isn’t the goal. Opinions may differ on the necessity of altering its national image to compete better for Senate domination. However, a careful analysis of the situation is necessary before making radical policy alterations. Harris’s loss may not be attributed exclusively to her moderate stance, and a far leftward shift might not generally secure the Democratic party’s electoral fate.
The certainty showcased by many is concerning, given the lack of a solid foundation to such claims. Truly progressing in the right direction implies placing the needs of the less privileged ahead of personal comfort, be it material or ideological.
In the current climate, the most vulnerable constituencies of America are banking on the Democrats to unseat the reactionary regime. If the party substitutes practical analysis with wishful thinking, such a task will only become more challenging. The right blend of policy shifts and political tact is key to ensuring a positive turn in the forthcoming years.