Democrats are still reeling from the shock of losing to Donald Trump for the second time in the past three elections. There’s quite a bit of finger-pointing and soul-searching still taking place, with both journalists and activists writing “autopsies” to understand both the reasons for the defeat and what lessons can be learnt moving forward.
I would be more supportive and less sceptical about the merits of some of these exercises were it not for two reasons. In the first place, most of these autopsies will be focused too narrowly on this election, as if the problems faced just emerged this year. Secondly, if past is prologue, these “studies” will most likely be read by a few, then shelved and forgotten.
In fact, any serious analysis seeking to understand what happened on November 5 must begin with the recognition that the seeds of this year’s Democratic defeat were planted decades ago and are now bearing fruit.
A few weeks ago, I wrote my own finger-pointing exercise, but now want to look more deeply into the forces that have come to shape the contours of our political landscape. Here are some of these factors:
Profound political, social, cultural and economic changes in American life have left millions of voters unsettled, insecure and angry. Unmoored, they are looking for certainty. In other similar moments in history, populations shaken by such dislocations have turned to forms of fundamentalism – finding certainty in a mythic glorious past – or to “strong leaders” who they felt understood their plight.
In addition to these societal changes, deep scars have been left on Americans’ psyche by dramatic, transformative events. The terror attacks of 9/11 and failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan left Americans feeling vulnerable and seeing their country’s stature in the world diminished. Add to this the economic collapse of 2008-2009 that shattered confidence in the American dream, all-too-frequent horrific mass shootings and traumatic impacts of Covid-19, and you have a society on edge waiting for “the other shoe to drop”.
Given this context, political leadership’s response to the unsettled electorate is important. For their part, Republicans have had some success in exploiting and expanding the fear. From Richard Nixon’s presidency until today, a constant thread in the Republican playbook has been preying on voters’ fears and insecurities. For example, early targets were "black" welfare recipients or criminals. President-elect Donald Trump has expanded the list to include immigrants, particularly Mexicans and Muslims, the “deep state”, and pretty much any group who challenges him. Mr Trump has wielded the “fear of ‘them’” as a potent weapon to super-charge his campaign against opponents.
Democrats, on the other hand, have appeared disconnected from the challenges faced by most voters. Instead of speaking directly to their pain, Democrats talked about the programmes they’ve launched, the progress they’ve made in creating jobs, saving the environment, protecting women’s healthcare choices and the need for a balanced approach to immigration. While all true, these discourses on policy have sounded “wonky”, making Democrats sound out of touch, dismissive or even patronising.
What voters have wanted is to know that candidates understand their insecurities and anger. The Democrats who’ve been effective at doing this have been those to whom voters could relate. Barack Obama was able to turn voters from fear to hope. Joe Biden, and even Bernie Sanders (though not in the presidential race), were successful because they showed voters that they too were angry at income inequality and loss of jobs and promised to fight for them.
The bottom line has been that voters needed to know that those who are going to lead them understand their situation.
For the first three quarters of the past century, Democrats operated according to a simple philosophy. As the party that supported economic justice for workers, they believed government had a role to play, as my mother would say, “to lend a helping hand to those who can’t lift themselves up”. Republicans, on the other hand, were the party that protected the rich. Their motto was “lower taxes, less government”.
This has changed. As a Republican senator recently boasted, “We have become the party of the working class, while Democrats are the party of the elites.” They aren’t, but that’s the perception they’ve successfully created.
How did it happen? Ask a Democrat today what the party stands for and you won’t get my mother’s bumper sticker answer. Instead, you’ll get a lecture on a range of social issues with no thread connecting them or making them relevant to working-class voters.
Republicans, on the other hand, when asked them they stand for, won’t say lower taxes. Instead, they’ll pull out Mr Trump’s list of “boogiemen” and Democrats’ cultural issues that they hate. Or they’ll simply say: “Make America Great Again” – a catch-all phrase evoking a return to past “glory” with all that it implies, or fighting against the social ills of culture change for which Democrats advocate, or simply a defence of Mr Trump against his foes. As one of the more successful Republican TV ads said: "Kamala is for They/Them" while "President Trump is for you”.
There was a time when political parties drove politics and were real organisations, from the local to the state to the national level. People belonged to a party. That is no longer the case. Today, parties are fundraising vehicles, amassing fortunes to pay for consultants, who run the campaigns and oftentimes the parties as well. While many voters contribute small sums, major donors contribute seven- and eight-figure amounts.
The problem with the Democratic consultants is that they are the same cast of characters who’ve been running and ruining politics for decades – following the same playbook and lacking any appreciation for changes in the electorate. They lack imagination and are risk-averse, tying candidates up in knots with cautions about what they can and shouldn’t say.
Mr Trump, however, freed himself from the Republicans’ consultant class, sidelining them and instead acting on gut instinct. Voters have read this as authentic.
What played out in this election were themes and behaviours that have been brewing for decades. Unless Democrats take a long hard look at how and why they’ve lost the connection with working-class voters and allowed consultants to take control of the party’s and their candidates’ messaging and outreach, the defeat of November 5 may well be repeated.
